dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/21/86)
I've already attempted to answer a certain posting by Tim Sevener, but it continued to bother me. My reply was weak, illogical, and I now realize, was based on ridicule. I've now figured out a way to express my objection without ridicule, moralizing, or emotionally loaded language. In response to Michael Berch's assertion that a gun would be an important piece of survival equipment in the aftermath of a nuclear war, Tim responded (in an article he titled "Nuclear aftermath: killing or healing"): No, Michael, if God forbid, there *is* a nuclear war ... I will be ... doing whatever I can to heal the sick and dying ... ... All I know is if you intend to go out and commit murder that I think you are sick and perhaps helplessly poisoned by an obsession with violent solutions to even the most clear signs that violence is foolish and futile. Now it appears to me that what Tim is trying to prove is that it is immoral to keep a gun in anticipation of needing it for self defense in the aftermath of a nuclear war. Yet all his argument really amounts to, when carefully examined, is an expression of disapproval of the idea of keeping a gun, combined with a suggestion of an alternative course of action of which he approves. Is Tim's disapproval of an act proof that that act is immoral? The only thing we can conclude from Tim's expressed disapproval is that Tim *believes* that the action in question is immoral. Tim's use of highly emotional language indicates that he feels strongly about the matter, but it doesn't indicate that he is right. If Tim were mistaken in his beliefs about morality, he would still express his disapproval just as strongly, so we cannot tell, either from his disapproval or the strength of his language, whether keeping a gun is immoral or not. We would have to know how he acquired this moral opinion, and only if he acquired this belief by valid means could we take his words as evidence that the act is actually immoral. All he has shown us is emotions, not valid arguments. -- David Canzi