rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) (10/19/85)
The Libertarian, the Utilitarian, and the Dictator A recent exchange between Nat Howard and Paul Torek illustrates how the arguments of Libertarians and Utilitarians pave the way for the rise of a dictator. Nat says that he values political freedom but that values cannot be determined by reason. Paul says that values can be determined by reason but that values can be achieved by the use of force. The potential dictator will agree with both of them, saying, "Nat, you're right. Values come from a realm not subject to reason. Reason and logic are for the world of mathematics, not the real world of life and blood. Everyone (except for Paul and some irrelevant others) knows that morality transcends reason. By the way, since you deny the use of reason in validating values, you surely appreciate that my love of using force has the same standing as your love of freedom. Having dismissed reason, I'm sure you won't attempt to use it to argue against me. "And you're right, too, Paul. There is no incompatibility between reason and force. Everyone (except for Nat and some irrelevant others) knows that it is reasonable to use force sometimes to achieve human values--you know, like the Hoover Dam. By the way, Paul, you will have to outgrow that childish notion that values are rational. I'll be happy to help. I'm setting up a laboratory for experimentation in changing people's minds by the use of force. Since you know there is no incompatibility between reason and force, I'm sure you agree that my techniques of persuasion are equivalent to yours." The dictator makes Nat his Minister of Propaganda (to explain why his values need no defense in reason) and Paul his tax collector (to finance his values). -- Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/22/85)
Love it! :-) Of course, Paul and I have wandered (at least, I have wandered) pretty far from the original controversy, which had to do with "base" reasons, or causes, for believing in things. I think we'd both agree that POLICIES must be rationally defended (even if I think of reason as a derived value and Paul thinks of it as a wired-in one).