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: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:04:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.044639.10557@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.230310.5886@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep12.211622.8055@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>
>>I'd get VERY worried if you started a movement of Rescorla haters.
>>If I thought they were really going to kill me, I'd probably either
>>try to stop it by "whatever means necessary" or run like a son
>>of a bitch.
>
>Please expand on what "whatever means necessary" includes.  I take
>it that it does not include the accusation that your persecutors
>are unjust, wrong, immoral, whatever.
Hmm...I guess if I thought it would be effective, I would accuse
my persecutors of all those things. However, it would be intellectually
dishonest, but seeing as I'd be trying to stay alive, and I don't
believe in morality, I couldn't call it wrong, and probably would do it.
I do think, however, that it would be most likely logically flawed.
(I.e. I'd be lying).

>>You misunderstand, sir. You're permitted to criticize as much as
>>you want. What I am disagreeing with is your characterization of
>>this teaching as "morally wrong" just as I disagree with the characterization
>>of Rescorlas as "people who should be killed" and the characterization
>>of gays as "sick, immoral, etc." 
>
>Why do you disagree with my characterization of Rescorlas as "people
>who should be killed?"
What do you mean by "should"? If that's a moral claim, I'd ask you
to substantiate it.

>  Please prove me wrong.
I can't. But by common norms, you have the burden of proof.
I suspect that I would be able to show that your logic was flawed.
You are correct that I could not prove you to be wrong.

>  Perhaps you could also
>explain how the Jews should have proven to the Nazis that it was wrong
>for the Nazis to throw them into gas chambers.
I don't think they could have.
The best they could have done is shown that the arguments the Nazis
were using were incorrect.

>>1) I think that whatever you choose to do is morally acceptable, because
>>I don't believe in morality, so I couldn't possibly judge it
>>as unacceptable.
>
>This is ridiculous.
In your opinion, not in mine.

>  If everybody thought this way, what would become
>of justice?  Do you believe in justice?
What's justice?

>  Do you believe that if I
>mug you that I should be brought to trial?
I would like to see you brought to trial. I don't know what "should" means.
I would like to see you brought to trial because I enjoy being in
the state of not being mugged, and I think that having you tried will
tend to keep me in that state in the future. I believe it's usually
known as rational self-interest.

>>2) I don't believe in morality myself, so I think that gays
>>are wrong in invoking morality to fight bigotry. I also think that
>>the bigots are wrong in invoking their morality to justify their bigotry.
>>Therefore, in this instance, I think that both groups are "incorrect".
>
>Then what do you mean when you say:
>
>   #After all, it would seem to me that if one indeed believed
>   #that homosexuality was sinful and imperilled another's soul,
>   #he would have a duty to inform him of that, at the very least.
>
>In my book, believing that homosexuality is sinful, and believing
>that it is immoral, is the same thing.
Yes, this was badly written. I meant within the logic system that
claimed that it was immoral. My objection to the Christian belief
system is in the premises, not the logic structure. I think
that the premises are basically well founded. In some cases,
the logical derivation of the rules from the premises is excruciatingly
good.

>  It appears to me then, that
>you support the right of the bigots to rant about morality, yet
>you would deny that same right to homosexuals
I support everyone's right to rant about anything they like,
but I reserve the right to call it foolish.

>  And on what basis
>do you make these judgements at all?  It seems to me that if you
>have no ideas about what is right and what is wrong (ie. you don't
>believe in morality) then you really have no basis on which to
>criticize or support either side.
On the contrary. I am quite well equipped to point out whether
someone is engaging in logically flawed arguments which is what
I have been doing.

>  Nor would you have any basis
>for contributing to a hypothetical thread about whether or not it
>was permissable to exterminate Rescorlas from the planet.
Once again, I would be able to point out logical flaws, engage in
reductio, challenge premises, that sort of thing.

>I'm also having a hard time understanding what it is you're asking
>for when you ask for substantiation of the claim that X is immoral,
>as you have done on a number of occasions.  For example:
It strikes me as quite simple.
The claim "X is immoral" is a proposition.
In a logical system, in order for one to believe that something
is true inside the system, it must either be an axiom or a theorem.
I don't accept it as an axiom. If I am to engage in a dialogue with
someone on this issue, one of two things must happen: 1) He must
decide that the proposition is axiomatic in which case we cannot
discuss, because it is part of his system but not mine, 2) He must
decide that it is not axiomatic, in which case we try to establish
a common base of axioms and decide whether or not the proposition
is a theorem.
I'm asking for evidence that the proposition follows from axioms
we can agree upon.

>It seems rather meaningless to me for you to ask for support for
>a moral judgement, when, since you don't believe in morality, it is
>obvious that no such support can be forthcoming.  Apparently, it
>isn't enough to demonstrate that bigotry causes needless suicides.
>What would be enough?  Why do you speak of substantiation for a concept
>which you consider nonexistant, in a way that might lead one to believe
>that such substantiation was possible?
I have yet to see a credible defense of morality from axioms I can
agree upon. That does not mean that such a defense is impossible
but merely that I have yet to see one and therefore do not believe in
it. I would be interested in seeing one, however. That's part of
what I'm asking for.

Actually, much of this discussion has involved positing the golden
rule and discussing whether or not gay rights are a logical consequent.
I have yet to see substantiation for this claim either.

I would in fact be interested in seeing a logical defense for gay
rights as a moral obligation based upon even a set of axioms which
I don't necessarily buy into, but which is reasonably small and
self-evident to some. For instance, I think a defense based on
GR would be interesting logically. I don't think it's possible.
It is my opinion that it takes a reasonably elaborate  logical system
to produce this proposition, but I could be wrong.

>>Do I really need to preface every criticism I make of someone supporting
>>gay rights with "I support gay rights but ..."
>No, you don't.  Why do you ask?
Because I have been repeatedly accused in this thread of trying to
control the lives of gays. That suggests that I in fact dol

>  BTW, *do* you support gay rights?
Yes.

>Why or why not?
Because if we establish(or permit to remain established) the premise
that the government can decide how people can live their lives, the
next person who's life it decides to control might be me.

In fact, it's already coming after me, and I don't like it much at
all.
-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