padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/23/85)
>>This is not just an assertion on Rich's part. There is empirical evidence >>demonstrating the desirability of freedom, and the desirability of >>increasing one's chances of survival. Look at any region of the world where >>refugees are; They are fleeing totalitarian societies, famine, and >>war. This fact is all that is needed to justify Rich's point of view, and >>consequently show that freedom etc is of some value. > >But this only presents a problem if you accept the position that all lives >are of equal value, and perhaps many others as well. This simply is not >universally accepted. It isn't even clear that a majority truly accept it. > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Who said it presents a problem? I didn't. Who mentioned anything about equality of lives? I didn't. Who said anything about it being universally accepted? I didn't. The point was to demonstrate that freedom etc. is of some value. Recall that the paragraph was in response to: > Perhaps there is a presupposition lurking somewhere in your rationale... > bolstered, presumably, by wishful thinking that "freedom" (undefined) and > "benefit" (also undefined - both probably subjective) are of some value. > Perhaps you are right - but why should anyone believe you are? You > can't give a reason, so you end up with proof by assertion. > > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- It would be appreciated if you would stick to the topic and stop trying to introduce digressions when no appropriate response is forthcoming. Padraig Houlahan.