From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.books,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Right to Kill
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:42:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct6.004250.16110
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Oct6.033334.5512@news.eng.convex.com> 
cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.224839.16108@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>>> Incidentally, should the
>>>>charming fellows in the ex-East Germany happen to come up with an updated
>>>>edition of "Mein Kampf", I would gladly put up another $100 towards the
>>>>goal of conclusive and irreversible reeducation of its author.
>...

MZ:
>> ...you could consult
>>the classics of political philosophy (e.g. John Locke) who give well-known
>>arguments to the effect that anyone has a right to destroy any individual
>>presenting clear and imminent danger to his life and well-being, in virtue
>>of his freely chosen, deliberative action.

PC:
>Perhaps. But it is also commonplace to make a distinction between what is
>said and what is done. People say all kinds of things. Some are
>ill-considered, some are carefully thought out; some are meant in earnest,
>some are only hot air. Sometimes people declare that they will do a thing
>(or that others ought to do it), and then change their minds. You just
>can't tell.

Please note that I specified clear and imminent danger resulting from freely
chosen, deliberative action.  These clauses would exclude both the cases of
"hot air" and ill-considered expressions of opinion.  The issue of epistemic
entitlement (i.e. the "you just can't tell" bit) I am taking as resolved.
And, at the risk of sounding too Nilgesian, I shall venture to say that
these days not too many serious philosophers of action, and even fewer
philosophers of language are prepared to make a principled distinction
between what is said and what is done.

PC:
>That's why it's not just to react to the spoken word in the same way as one
>would react to an action. If someone says that he will kill you--or that
>_someone_ should slit your throat--then you are right to watch that person
>very carefully, and to make sure of your weapons. You are not right to kill
>him for that mere utterance. On the other hand, if he meets you in the
>night with bared blade, then you most certainly have a right to act.

In view of my example, I maintain that it is conceivable that a mere speech
act may satisfy the criteria I presented above.  A fuehrer may fulfill them
without personally attacking anyone, or even issuing any specific orders,
simply by being a direct and indispensable inspiration to his followers.

PC:
>It was humorous--the image of Ayatollah Zeleny putting out a contract on
>those other mullahs. 

As my sublime predecessor, who dreamed of a world where each bourgeois is a
little poet, I dream of a world where each poet is a little ayatollah.

PC:
>			Don't ruin the joke by taking it too seriously.

You really must look up old Fowler on the subject of "pedantic humour".

>-- 
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
>Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."