From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 19:33:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.153557.26010@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.064059.20019@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep13.060423.9569@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>What do you mean by "should"? If that's a moral claim, I'd ask you
>>>to substantiate it.
>>I don't have to substantiate it because it's part of my theology.
>Ok. So it's axiomatic for you. This means that we have nothing to discuss.

Great.  Just remember that when I start my movement.

>>>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.
>>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.

>>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.
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.  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.

For example, suppose I would like to go to the washroom.  I can't prove
using the axioms of physics that I want to go to the washroom.  But
using this goal and the laws of physics, I might be able to prove
that sitting on my ass is not appropriate behaviour.

>>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?
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
Newsgroups: alt.atheism