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: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:17:25 GMT

In article <C16IA9.6zr@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan20.152538.12025@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>> In article <C14GGz.L0B@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>Nor would the "wrongfulness" of these facts and arguments be 
>>>diminished by appealing to an "ad populum" fallacy.  The 
>>>"wrongfulness" of an idea, like the flatness of the earth, for 
>>>example, ought to be resolved by analyzing the basis of the
>>>idea...  not by appealing to a widespread belief that the
>>>idea is true.  
>> 
>> Perhaps "it ought to be."  But it's not.  The fact is that moral
>> judgements are popularity contests held by those who have the
>> power to make them apply to everyone.
>
>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.

> 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.  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 not get the two principles confused, Russell, they are NOT the
	same thing.

>>>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.

>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.

>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.


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