From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:33:23 GMT

From article <1993Jan22.175206.7947@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> 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.  

Not really.

> 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.

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.  

>>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. 

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.  

> 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.

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

> ...
>>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."  

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.  

> Note that no amount of
> equivocation over the meanings of "right" and "wrong" will carry
> this argument in the direction you want to take.

Would you care to specify when and where you think I've engaged
in equivocation?   The fact that you insist on re-defining my
terms to suit your convenience doesn't mean that I'm equivocating.

> 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.

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

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ