From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:43:42 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In article <C02zFx.5Eq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>Good always has to be defined, ultimately, case by case. I don't think 
>>there is any one concept which will define it in *all* circumstances. 

>>Which is not to say there might not be concepts which define it
>>in *most* circumstances; but these concepts form a practical,
>>not a theoretical definition of good.

>There are two problems with this approach:
>1) A not very clear of definition "good" let people manipulate the
>   system.  If they are honest it can make a lot of good, but this
>   kind of power attracts McCarthy-type people, and so it
>   usually makes a lot of bad.

A clear definition works very well in more stable societies,
but doesn't seem to work as well in more quickly changing
societies. 

>2) Unwritten laws and "you should have known that that was 
>   forbidden" is unfair.  That's why the citizens of Athens 
>   demanded written laws *long* time ago.

I was not talking about what should or should not be legal; I was
talking about ethics.

>>>If you have a machine that works reasonably well then it is not
>>>a good idea to "improve" it before you understand it.

>>Agreed. But even in this "Bronze age of oppression" (to quote
>>another poster) *some* people understand the machine enough
>>to make *some* improvements.

>Would you mind to give some specific examples?

Very simple. In my mathematics department, a professor proposed
that the comprehensive examinations, which had been written,
be changed over to oral exams. The matter was put to a vote
of the professors.

Many graduate students (myself included) believed that they
should stay written. I wrote a public letter to that effect, as
did another graduate student and two professors. (One professor
wrote in favor of oral comprehensives.)

The change to oral comprehensives was voted down; they stayed 
written. I think in this case justice was done, and that
my written contribution was one of four that may have had
some affect. 

Now this is a very small example, of course. I am just saying
that activism may sometimes cause an improvement; and that
this is the case I have been most personally involved with.
I am not saying that it always causes improvement.

(And by the way, in this case, everyone involved had the best
of intentions.)

>>>It seems to me a better idea to start fixing what does not work.
>>>E.g. finding out why NY has the highest state taxation on an
>>>average family in the nation, but it gives lousy services.

>>Alfonse d'Amato? You should hear my mother -- who lives in New
>>York -- talk about him!

>>(And let me be nonpartisan and mention David Dinkins...)

>You see the problem as the people, I see the problem in the kind
>of system that attracts those people.

I actually see the problem (or some great component of it) as
television...

>Because the system was supposed to create "social justice," it has
>*taxed* the middle class people.  As a result the government had a 
>lot of money to spend, and people like d'Amato and Dinkins have
>been attracted to it.

>In my opinion, part of "social justice" is reducing the power of the
>government.  Do you reject this approach?  Can you give an example
>where a powerful government stayed (more or less) "clean handed"?

>Hillel                                      gazit@cs.duke.edu

Hillel, can you give an example of any government which has
stayed "clean handed"? 

I have mixed feelings about reducing the power of the government.
I think it is often a good thing, in general. I am not in favor
of it as a fixed ideology; and I also note that sometimes the
government acts as a check and balance to the quasi-governmental
power of big, bureaucratic corporations.

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism