From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:48:02 GMT

In article <pit07d0@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.025839.27590@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>|> 
>|> If ((!I wish that people treat me equally well) &&
>|> (I wish that:(If I were gay, people would try to make me straight))
>|> 
>|> Then:
>|> (I would try to make gay people straight)
>|> 
>|> Now, note the assumptions here, sir:
>|> 1) !I wish that people treat me equally well.
>|> 2) I wish that:(If I were gay, people would try to make me
>|> straight.)
>|> 3) The Golden rule.
>
>Let's see if this works in other cases:
>
> If ((!I wish that people treat me equally well) &&
>     (I wish that:(If I had a cerebral hemorrhage, people would 
>	try to make me well))
>
>  1) !I wish that people treat me equally well.
>  2) I wish that:(If I had a cerebral hemorrhage, people would 
>	try to make me well)
>  3) The Golden rule.
>
>Now I'm not a brain surgeon, so if I followed your reasoning,
>and tried to fix your brain hemorrhage the results would be 
>disastrous.
You would wish, would you not, that I try to obtain for you
medical attention?

>As I explained before, this is your fallacy.   It's not any
>arbitrary help whatsoever that you desire, but qualified help
>from qualified people.
Most Christians believe themselves to be qualified.
This is, therefore, a nit.

>    And the fact that you would want 
>help in one situation does not let you assume that others
>would want help in that situation, or qualify you to offer 
>help.
Then one is failing to apply the golden rule, Mr. Livesey.
It states, quite clearly that one is to DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU
WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.

>What the Golden Rule is telling you, if you think about it,
>is that you should treat the other person as yourself: by
>letting them get the help they think they can use, if they
>think they can use any help at all, which of course includes
>no help at all.[1]
You seem to fail to understand here, sir, that I am suggesting
a dramatic shift in premises. And if one operates under the
premise set *I* am describing, one IS obligated to attempt to
help. YOUR premise set values choice and independence.
The hypothesized  set values ultimately "right thinking." Above
all else. What the Golden Rule tells you and tells a believer
are therefore very different things. That's what makes Mr.
Webb's argument so pointless.

>|> Now, Mr. Livesey, I have professed belief in none of these
>|> three. And yet you have somehow arrived at the belief that
>|> I believe in the conclusion. 
>
>You are presenting the argument, and so I am explaining what's
>wrong with the argument.   When I say "you" I am addressing the
>person expressing the argument.     If you want to say "I don't
>believe this crap for a minute, but I've heard people say XXXXX"
>that's fine, too, and then I'll say "Well, *their* argument is
>incorrect, as follows....."    Would that be OK with you?
That's feeble, Mr. Livesy. Very feeble.
Let us remember events. You responded to two posts of mine.
One was a pure criticism of a claim about the etiology of
sexual preference. In that response, sir, you wrote:
>So probably we would all be better off with you letting people
>live the life they feel best with, so long as they don't harm
>other people doing it.
Since the post to which you were following up said nothing
about controlling people's lives, I can only come to the conclusion
that you have taken this to be my position, rather than arguing
a hypothetical. Else why attack me on those grounds?
And then why I asked you what made me think that I wanted
to control people's lives, you posted my words from THIS argument.
Those are not the actions of the man who does not believe that
I hold this position. 

>|> No, that would be a moral statement that I would be unwilling
>|> to make.
>
>Then are you saying that in some circumstances it may be right
>to try to "make someone straight" even when they havn't asked 
>you to?
>
>Please explain.
I don't believe in morality, Mr. Livesey. Therefore, I would
be unwilling to express any moral opinion.

That is why I am discussing the logic structure of the argument.
That is why I was careful NOT to express my opinion.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: rec.scouting