From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:15:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.193341.2754@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.153557.26010@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>I'd be fascinated to see some of these so-called well founded premises,
>>>and one or two of these so-called excruciatingly good logical derivations.
>>Oh, this was terrible writing on my part.
>>Sorry, I think that the premises are ghastly and wrong. I think that
>>sometimes the derivations are pretty good. Can't generate any offhand.
>>Does this matter? It seems like a side issue to me.
>It's definitely a side issue.  I didn't want to let it go unchallenged
>though.  It seems strange to me that you speak of pretty good, or
>excruciatingly good, derivations,  but yet can't think of one.
Point taken. General impression. I retract the claim.


>>>Ah.  So can we accept as an axioms that totalitarianism and fascism
>>>are to be avoided?
>>No, they're theorems.
>>And I'd phrase them as "I would rather not have totalitarianism or
>>fascism." You see the difference?
>Yes, the difference between your wording and mine is useless nitpicking.
No, I don't agree.
Your formulation implies that this belief is common to --or should
be common to--everyone. Mine doesn't.

>But I disagree that that these are theorems.  I'm not too familiar with
>the appropriate terminology, but it seems to me that any discussion of
>morality must include goals as well as axioms.  You can't prove the goals
>from the axioms.
Goals are essentially axiomatic in nature. Of the form: It is axiomatic
that I desire X.

>  But once you've decided on the goals, you may be able
>to use them in conjunction with the axioms in order to prove that certain
>behaviour is wrong.  I would guess that to deal with the system logically,
>you'd treat the goals as axioms.
The goal is that I wish to be left alone. The theorem is that
totalitarian systems will likely result in me not being left alone
therefore I desire that they do not exist. It is, in fact, possible
that I could do well in such a system if I were in control. I simply
do not consider the probability high enough to be meaningful.

>>>Why don't you prove to your government that it shouldn't be coming
>>>after you?  Hopefully you and it will agree on axioms.
>>Low probability of it being effective.
>>I disagree with my government as to axioms. One of it's axioms seems
>>to be that it is a good thing to tell me how to live.
>So here you agree that your government accepts totalitarianism as
>an axiom.  Why can't you accept !totalitarianism as an axiom?  What
>*are* your axioms anyway?
I think that !totalitarianism can be derived from simpler principles.
It can, for instance, be derived from the belief that I want to be left
alone and the theorem that if I do not leave others alone, I am likely
not to be left alone. I'm trying to keep my axiomatic system as small
as possible.

At least one axiom is that I want to be left alone.
I'd suggest, in fact, a model based on science, not strictly on logic.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality