oconnor@sunset.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor) (02/12/88)
An article by morrow@topaz.rutgers.edu (John Morrow) says:
:=@ In article <1603@imagen.UUCP> isaak@imagen.UUCP (Mark Isaak) writes:
:=@ > Am I missing something in your argument, or are you begging the question?
:=@ [...]
:=@ The principle at work here is the one that killing an innocent person
:=@ is wrong because it is. This is based on the premise that SOME MORAL
:=@ VALUES ARE ABSOLUTE BECAUSE THEY ARE.
:=@ [...]
:=@ What's wrong with taking property and what's wrong with killing? THEY
:=@ ARE JUST WRONG.
:=@ [...]
:=@ >Mark Isaak UUCP: {decwrl,sun}!imagen!isaak
:=@
:=@ John Morrow These are my opinions (no one else seems to want them...)
So as we see, John Morron is INDEED begging the question, and is too
dense to realize it. If widdle Jonny Morwhon want to tink tings
are wong because dey is wong, fine. But it is NOT productive input
to a philosophical argument, and hasn't been since Plato.
Go away, John-boy, and take a course in logic and argument, if you are old
enough to enroll in college courses. Then come back.
And quit drooling on yourself.
--
Dennis O'Connor oconnor@sunset.steinmetz.UUCP ??
ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa
"Nuclear War is NOT the worst thing people can do to this planet."Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com (02/13/88)
>Not productive to philosophical argument
I do not consider this a debating game since it is a matter of human life and
death. Various things which aren't philosophically interesting have to be
dealt with - If you jump off a tall building, you can consider the implications
(philosophically) of Gravity before you splatter on the ground below - but
that is not the way to deal with gravity - you should not jump off in the
first place.
But since you are such an expert at analyzing "killing" and it's morality,
perhaps you can do the same thing for philosophy and logic itself? Why should
I bother or accept logical or philosophical arguments? What makes them right
or wrong or even valid? If you are free to reduce killing to mere personal
opinion, then why should I not reduce philosophy to the same basis which
would make your arguments on killing irrelevant since you have not proved
that philosophy itself is a valid method of attacking the question.
(or is philosophy and logic right just because it is?).