From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: X% unethical [was Re: why hunting is unethical]
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:40:47 GMT

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".

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

>>    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?  We've known that you're self-centered
for quite some time.  What else is new?

>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?

>...
>>   >>We've been over this many times previously, so I suspect that
>>   >>you'll continue to argue that the wrongfulness of slavery and 
>>   >>rape are mere conventions and nothing more.
>>   > 
>>   > You got it, Dude.  
>>   
>>   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?

>>   I would readily agree that a victim's lack of power has practical 
>>   implications, but I strongly disagree with your claim that the
>>   rightfulness or wrongfulness of an action depends on power.  
>
>Of course you do...you wouldn't have an argumentative leg upon
>which to stand, if you did not disagree.  The sad fact remains,
>however, that he who has the proverbial "big stick" gets to say
>what's ethically correct and what is not.  Note that what he of
>"big stick" fame says is ETHICALLY correct, may well be EMOTIONALLY
>horrifying.

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.

>>   It's true that some ethical ideas are mere conventions and nothing 
>>   more, but this doesn't mean that all ethical ideas are mere 
>>   conventions.
>
>You keep saying this, as if some deeply significant mantra, but
>you offer us no proof, preferring, instead, to waste our time
>with pathetic attempts at clever linguistic legerdemain, rather
>than considered cogitation of data.

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?

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