X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:07:35 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: honest question seeks honest answer
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> Uh, I prefer Rawls' logic to Spock's, how about you? (Not that
> I'm against the logic of fictional characters, or anything.)

I think that Rawls posited a theory more acceptable to Western
philosophies, yes.   In the real world, though, from a very real and
logical approach to preservation of life--- Spock (and John Stuart
Mill's concept of Utilitarianism, or the greatest good for the
greatest number) do appear more acceptable.


>
> For the sake of accuracy:
>
> "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice
> thta even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override."
>
> (Maybe Stan made the error of asking PS to help him look up
> passages?)

I'm reminded of a line from the original DIE HARD, where the computer
hacker looks at a LAPD assault vehicle burn and says, "OOOOOH, MY
GOD. HE'S TOOOOOOOAST!"

Re: the quote, my bad.  The quote used, from pg. 4, now stands
corrected.  (Somewhere else, Rawls mentions "...the calculus of social
interest cannot override..."  Whatever.  It's been a few years since
I've studied Rawls...)  Thanks for the correction.


> >... in the military, utilitarianism is the basis of most decisions.
> >We sacrifice an entire unit of men in order to protect the lives of
> >the rest of the troops and preserve the MOST life.  Further (and more
> >concrete) examples can be provided if one doubts my point.
>
> A nice point.
>
> But, there is a difference between the sorts of decisions made within
> the military and the sorts of decisions made about who gets to join.
> Entering the military means taking a chance that you will have to
> make an enormous sacrifice. Justice (a la Rawls) requires that
> decisions about entering be fair. Once entered, the arrangements
> can define a peculiar sort of fairness of their own.

Ok.  So the military allows anyone that wants to join the military
in, and then--according to their utilitarian right from within--
fires them.  Is that more acceptable?  The basic concept here is that
the military must operate to preserve the most life in a combat
situation.  If there is sufficient evidence to prove that allowing
gays into the material would violate the preservation of life by
causing troop demoralization, then it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the
military to the soldiers (gay and/or straight) to prevent the loss of
life by prohibiting gays from being re-admitted (after they are fired
from within...)


> Of course, myself I doubt that there is much social cost to
> allowing gays to join the military--certainly no one has
> documented any. But even if there were, we are generally
> committed to bearing such costs where individual rights
> are concerned.

Unfortunately, I'd hate to think that my military was preserving my
individual rights if I died because of general troop demoralization
in combat.

I've also heard that those that oppose the draft could argue on
religious grounds against joining the service in the event that gays
are allowed in the military.  I don't quite understand how that would
work, but in theory, if people could get out of a draft because of
it, that could potentially constitute a national security threat.


Something to think about...

Stan Jacobs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU