From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 17:52:06 GMT

In article <C18700.KpH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan21.151725.7267@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>>In article <C16IA9.6zr@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>   A man like yourself, who claims that he's only motivated by
>>>   selfish interests, may pretend that there's nothing wrong with
>>>   rape... provided that x% of his cohorts share his opinion and
>>>   that he has sufficient power to carry out his wishes.
>>
>>There's no pretense about it; if it is agreed that rape is ethically
>>acceptable, then it is.  By definition.
>
>I used the phrase "wrong", but you've substituted the phrase
>"acceptable".

	No, I didn't "substitute" anything for "wrong."  I used the phrase
	"ethically acceptable" (<-- See, Russell?  TWO words!) to describe
	an idea.  If my phrase is a substitute for anything, it would be
	for "right," as you generally use the word.  There ARE adult
	programs for the reading-impaired, you know.....I'm sure you can
	find one in Louisiana which is sufficiently discreet to keep your
	dirty little secret.

>That fact that an action is "acceptable" by you and the 
>perpetrators doesn't mean that it's "acceptable" to the victim.  

	It doesn't matter.  What's ethically acceptable to the victim is
	irrelevant if said victim can't make others abide by said rules
	of acceptability.  If society says that rape is ethically acceptable,
	no amount of whimpering, whining, shouting, or screaming by the
	victim during a rape will make it ethically unacceptable to that
	society.

	I see a parallel here: killing animals for food is not considered
	to be ethically unacceptable in our society, no matter how many
	times vegans/vegetarians claim that it is.  In the future, who
	knows?  At present, however, society's opinion on the matter is
	clearly in the omnivore camp.

>Nor could we conclude, "by definition", that there's nothing 
>wrong with rape in such a case.  After all, the fact that you 
>believe a particular idea doesn't necessarily mean that the idea 
>is true.  

	Absolutely correct as far as it goes, but the flaw you fail to see
	is that truth or falsity do not necessarily determine the ethical
	judgements of "right" and "wrong."  Note that no amount of
	equivocation over the meanings of "right" and "wrong" will carry
	this argument in the direction you want to take.

>>>   However, the idea that rape is "right", rather than "wrong", won't
>>>   diminish the physical and mental suffering of the victim, 
>>>   the anguish of her family, the repercussions of violence, etc, 
>>>   etc.
>>
>>Ah, but now you're not talking about the ETHICAL implications,
>>you're talking about the EMOTIONAL implications.  These are two
>>separate and distinct areas.  The "pleasantness" or "unpleasantness"
>>of an act has absolutely no bearing on its morality, unless we
>>choose to connect the two ideas.
>
>Are you saying that you can make facts and ideas disappear from your
>mind by simply ignoring them?

	No, that's not what I'm saying...which would be perfectly clear
	if you were to attend that reading class I suggested earlier.

>>The example given (of genitally
>>mutilated women in Somalia) is a perfect example: the mutilation
>>is definitely "unpleasant," but it is not immoral.  Even the
>>mutilated women do not consider it "immoral," although I'm sure
>>they consider it to be excruciatingly painful.
>
>Do they voluntarily consent to the procedure, Rich?   Or, are they 
>obliged to submit under the threat of violence?

	As I said above: irrelevant.  Is the procedure ethically acceptable
	in Somali tribal society?  [yes]

>>>   I think you're shortsighted, Rich.   
>>
>>I think you're ignorant and intellectually shallow, Russ.
>
>Which of us is truly ignorant and shallow?  The man who tries
>to examine all the available facts?  Or the man who insists
>that an action is good simply because he says it is?

	Or might the man who misquotes his opponent be the one who's
	intellectually shallow?

	NOTA BENE: I have never claimed that an action is "good" simply 
		because I say so.  I __have__ claimed that an action may
		be "ethically acceptable" if I have either the persuasive
		power or the force to form a societal consensus on the issue.

>You're appealing to force, Rich.  The fact that a tyrant has a great
>deal of power doesn't mean that all his ideas are true.

	No, but it might well mean that everyone will agree with him anyway
	(in practice, if not in theory):

	[Picture soldier holding cocked, loaded rifle at citizen's head.]

	   Soldier: "Rape is good, isn't it, Citizen."

	   Citizen: "Hey, whatever you say, Dude!  You got it: rape IS good!"

>I've invited Werner to submit to torture, so that he can witness
>some of the facts first-hand.  Would you care to join him?

	What are you, CRAZY?  Torture HURTS!  The fact that you apparently
	consider it to be ethically acceptable doesn't change that, although
	it does raise dark and foreboding questions about your psyche...
	especially when your obsession with rape is considered.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)