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: Sat, 23 Jan 93 18:34:59 GMT

In article <C1A6vo.A4L@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan22.175206.7947@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):

[...]

>> 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.  
>
>Not really.

	In "Russell-ese" this means, "I screwed up, but I'm genetically 
	incapable of admitting it, so I'll reply with some indefinite
	comment just so that I'll have the last word on the subject."

>Let's not forget that an idea isn't true simply because it's 
>believed (ie, accepted).  As an example, a murder or rape isn't 
>"good" just because the perpetrator and his cohorts have 
>"accepted" such a conclusion.  

[...]

>No, it's not irrelevant at all, Rich.  An observer may ignore the 
>victim's plight, but his ignorance won't make her pain and 
>suffering go away.  

[...]

>Uh huh.  And the idea that the earth was flat was acceptable in 
>the year 1400, yet the earth was round nonetheless.

[...]

>I realize, all-too-well, that truth is often far removed from 
>some people's opinions about ethical decision-making.  By the 
>same token, the latest scientific knowledge was far removed from 
>Pope Urban's opinion that Copernicus was mistaken.  Yet, 
>superficial opinions shouldn't dissuade us from digging deeper 
>into the facts and arguments that underlie our decisions.  

[...]

>Again, the fact that an idea is believed (ie accepted) doesn't 
>necessarily make it true.

	All of the above statements say essentially the same thing, so I'll
	address them as a group.

	It is absolutely correct that "accepted" does not mean "true,"
	but this begs the question, which is, "Does truth or falsity
	determine ethical acceptability?"  And the answer, of course, 
	is, "No."

>Would you care to specify when and where you think I've engaged
>in equivocation?

From <1993Jan20.152538.12025@pixel.kodak.com>:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Russell, from <C14GGz.L0B@wpg.com>:
>
>You've admitted on many occasions that there are no such things 
>as "universals" when it comes to ethical opinions.  Hence, it 
>shouldn't make much difference whether or not slavery was 
>"universally considered to be wrong", as you say.  The fact that 
>you and I can't point to a "cosmic" law that outlaws slavery 
>won't diminish our realization that the embrace of slavery, as an 
>institution, depended on some "facts" that were erroneous (ie 
>wrong), as well as some arguments that were irrational (ie 
>wrong).  

	Nice equivocation, Russell; at first, "wrong" meant "morally bereft"
	in your discussion and now you want to make an equivalence with
	"in error."  And then you want to equate "irrational" with "in
	error" and "morally bereft."  Cute, but it won't wash.  How does
	it feel to be "irrational," Russell?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals