flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (08/22/84)
From Scott D. Anderson (decvax!ittvax!anderson): >> Ah, but by definition, "rights" are arbitrary, so they cannot be >> judged right or wrong. Not by my definiton! Statements about (moral) rights can be true or false. The existence of (legal) rights can be right or wrong. >> (Laura) should realize that laws are based on a cost/benefit >> analysis, not on abstract notions of right and wrong. No, they are based on BOTH types of considerations. Often one of these types predominates; this can be either type. >> Whether or not a fetus is human is not a matter of fact. It is a >> matter of definition. No, it is BOTH. Again, you commit the either/or fallacy (not a fallacy in the strict sense, but in the colloquial sense). What humanity is is a matter of definition. What fits the criteria is a matter of fact. But I digress. >> Yes, but who will tell us what is right? I WILL! This reminds me of a Peanuts cartoon. Lucy asks Charlie Brown whether she's a good person. Charlie Brown responds with a wishy-washy "who can say what is good and what is bad?" And Lucy replies, "I will!" Lucy had the right attitude. Touche! From Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp >> Please post an algorithm for determining "truth", given any >> proposition or topic. There may be an "absolute truth", but we >> never see it. Look, as much as you don't like this fact, truth is not definable in terms of what can be found by a certain algorithm. (Didn't Godel prove this for mathematical truth?) This does not invalidate the concept of truth one whit -- it merely (partly) explains it. So give up, Brian. You haven't got a case. Another slap in the face from --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink