padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/23/85)
[The discussion began in this newsgroup and should be continued there.] In article <397@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >>> > Because we happen to like those things. Don't you? Don't survival, >>> > continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living? > >>> Thus, all the talk about objectivity, examination of presuppositions >>> clung to in order to bolster a preconceived desired conclusion, >>> wishful thinking, etc., etc. (many of you as well can no doubt mimic >>> the usual phrases), is a complete smokescreen. > >>Why? This would be correct if Rich maintained that objectivity was the >>sole arbitrator, in all cases. I got the impression that his view point >>was basically that objective claims demand objective evidence. This >>does not exclude subjective evidence from being useful in cases where >>the claim is only presented as being subjective. > >>I note with interest that the correctness of his statement, in itself, >>has not been challanged. > >Perhaps so, but, by the same token, he is not in a position to demand >objective evidence on the part of others, anyway. You have not shown this to be the case. >.. And besides, he IS making >an objective statement: that the morality of "Non-interference" is an >absolute moral imperative. It's not that I necessarily agree with him >(although, since I subscribe to a particular form of situational ethics, I >do disagree); it's that, if you're going to base a moral absolute on Human >Nature, you need some justification, some psychological theory that gets you >from human nature to this principle. Rich hasn't shown any. The statement may be objective. In being asked to justify "non-interference" the subjective element "that the individual benefits" is introduced. Rich was explicitly responding to that, subjective, aspect. The smokescreen charge does not hold. The rest is a digression from the criticism directed at him, and is discussed elsewhere. Padraig Houlahan.