From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 06:40:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.060423.9569@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.044639.10557@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>Why do you disagree with my characterization of Rescorlas as "people
>>who should be killed?"
>
>What do you mean by "should"? If that's a moral claim, I'd ask you
>to substantiate it.

I don't have to substantiate it because it's part of my theology.

>>  Please prove me wrong.
>I can't. But by common norms, you have the burden of proof.
>I suspect that I would be able to show that your logic was flawed.
>You are correct that I could not prove you to be wrong.

I'm not using logic.  I'm using the prejudices that I've been
indoctrinated with by my religious leaders and by society.

>My objection to the Christian belief
>system is in the premises, not the logic structure. I think
>that the premises are basically well founded. In some cases,
>the logical derivation of the rules from the premises is excruciatingly
>good.

I'd be fascinated to see some of these so-called well founded premises,
and one or two of these so-called excruciatingly good logical derivations.

>Actually, much of this discussion has involved positing the golden
>rule and discussing whether or not gay rights are a logical consequent.
>I have yet to see substantiation for this claim either.
>
>I would in fact be interested in seeing a logical defense for gay
>rights as a moral obligation based upon even a set of axioms which
>I don't necessarily buy into, but which is reasonably small and
>self-evident to some. For instance, I think a defense based on
>GR would be interesting logically. I don't think it's possible.
>It is my opinion that it takes a reasonably elaborate  logical system
>to produce this proposition, but I could be wrong.

I don't think that platitudes such as the GR have much use in a
discussion of morality.  It may provide a useful working rule, but
it seems quite useless logically.  I think that to show that bigotry
is wrong, we'd first have to agree on some details of how a healthy
society should function, and then show that irrational hatred is
detrimental to those goals.  My idea of utopia includes a population
that is rational and sane.  That bigotry is something to be avoided
falls out easily from that.

>>  BTW, *do* you support gay rights?
>Yes.
>
>>Why or why not?
>Because if we establish(or permit to remain established) the premise
>that the government can decide how people can live their lives, the
>next person who's life it decides to control might be me.

Ah.  So can we accept as an axioms that totalitarianism and fascism
are to be avoided?

>In fact, it's already coming after me, and I don't like it much at
>all.

Why don't you prove to your government that it shouldn't be coming
after you?  Hopefully you and it will agree on axioms.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_