From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Dahmerian ethics(!?!). Was Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:26:56 GMT

black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes in response to me
only (I won't edit the attributes too much):

>In <viking.712466816@vincent1.iastate.edu> Dan Sorenson writes:

>Dahmer's morals are not "just as valid" if he is unwilling to
>voluntarily subject himself to the type of treatment that he
>intentionally and forcibly inflicted on others.

	On the contrary, I am unwilling to be voluntarily shot (though
I have been without my consent on a few occassions), but this does not
mean I am immoral in shooting a person in self defense, or in shooting
an animal as food or clothing.  I eat meat, and just as the deer I shoot
do not walk up and ask to be shot but have to be hunted, so must I.

>Also it seems like a contradiction for you to refer to an individual's
>morals as "sick, but valid." When you refer to Dahmerian ethics as
>"sick", you're passing judgment on his ethics and manifesting
>intolerance toward him.  What happened to your idea expressed below
>about not judging people by YOUR ethical code?

	That reference was made on a personal basis, as you will note that
I also said they were valid.  I despise corn, by the way.  Hate it with a
passion.  I'd say your diet, if it includes corn, is sick, but I won't
say it is invalid.  Note the slight difference.

>You're also saying that if his ethics are really as valid as yours,
>then yours are equally "sick."

	They could very well be.  I eat meat.  To you or perhaps Russ,
these are sick morals I have that allow me to kill animals for my own
selfish purposes.  Tough.  I don't think they are, and I go by what I
think, and what the law allows (most of the time), not a minority
opinion.  When it's a law, I will most likely obey.  On moral grounds
I think the argument towards vegetarianism false.

>Dan Sorenson writes:
>>	Think of it as civic improvement.  I didn't say it would me
>>morally right, just that many of them could be killed and nothing but
>>good come of it.  That killing need not be murder, you know.

>The question still seems unanswered.  How can it be "good" to kill a
>moral person?  Are you suggesting that civic improvement is the "good"
>that results from killing these good people? Again you're lapsing into
>the practice of making judgments based on your own ethical code.  That's
>fine, except that it shows you don't really believe that all ethical
>theories are equally valid.  You appear to believe yours is more valid
>(better).  How did you decide this?  What criteria did you use to decide
>whether an action is one of civic improvement or civic regression?

	My ethical code is backed up by the force of law (most of the
time), and that force makes it more valid than yours.  This is because
enough people subscribe to my view to have enacted the law against the
opposition.  I also think it ethical to drive above the speed limit, but
you (generic) think this is unethical, and so I receive speeding tickets.
One cannot kill a moral person and still be within the law, and you'll
note that the people I mentioned are what the law deems immoral.  That
they thought their actions moral is of no concern to the law.  A person
who gives aid and comfort to the enemy is hung until dead, no matter if
he thought the aid and comfort to be moral things to do.  By the same
token, I could contemplate shooting President Lincoln were I around at
that time because he broke Constitutional law.  I leave what happened to
Boothe as an exercise of morality versus the law.  Sometimes you win,
sometimes you lose.  The only criterion is one of societal morals, and
those have a habit of being different from our own in various areas.

>>	Sorry Rob, but I truly believe that people should not be judged
>>based solely on my ethical code, and I expect that same treatment from
>>others.  

>Finally a modest amount of sense intrudes :-).  We have here at
>least the germ of a workable ethical principle.

>Why not generalize what you have just said?  The result could be
>something like this: "Do unto others only those actions whose
>projected impact you would voluntarily and willingly accept on
>yourself."  Now append a few reasonable exceptions to handle
>defense or wartime activities.  Aren't we now on the road to a
>universal ethical standard which can be used to evaluate the
>ethics of an individual's actions?

>And then we can turn away from that sterile ethical relativism,
>which has been so frequently proselytized to the general readership
>of t.p.a. but which is so patently self-defeating and can be used
>to justify anything and everything.

	The statement I made can be used to justify virtually
anything in society at large, and hence I won't generalize it.  I
do feel that I treat others as I would prefer to be treated, but let
me give you an example of what I'm concerned about:

	One right recognized, not granted, is the right to keep and
bear arms.  This is the second amendment to the Constitution.  I swore
an oath to defend and protect it against all enemies, foreign and
domestic, and I take oaths seriously.  I would deny this right to a
violent, convicted felon.  Thus, Joe who robbed a liquor store and shot
the clerk shall not have a firearm under my moral code.  He gave up a
right when he shot the clerk.  Now then, let's say that I shoot a
burgular whom I felt in dire peril from.  Do I lose my rights to a
firearm too because I acted thus?  I also believe that the KKK, Minute
Men, Black Panthers, and PETA should be allowed to say whatever they
want to the point of slander or incitation to riot.  Do you agree that
the KKK should be able to hold a rally in a public park?

	I'm a wierd one, I admit, when it comes to morals, but to me it
is just as immoral to allow a violent felon a firearm as it is to not
allow the KKK to speak.  With regards to the AR groups, it is just as
bad to not allow me to hunt as it is to not allow PETA to speak, or
to bomb labs (though they should pay for it in a manner prescribed by
law).  I did not make the law, which reflects mojority morals, but I
generally abide by it.  Thus, I can say that I don't wish to judge
others by my moral code, but I do not wish to be judged by the moral
code of others.  I prefer to be judged by society at large.  In short,
don't let PETA judge me for eating meat and I won't let the KKK judge
you (generic) for being black, or the Minutemen for being a liberal,
or the Black Panthers for being white, etc ad nauseum.

>Here you're not talking about ethics, but about power.  If those who
>wield the power are not themselves willing to be treated as they treat
>others, then they're acting unethically, no matter how successful they
>are at imposing their will on others. 

	I refer you towards politics, Abraham Lincoln, and the second
amendment.  Congress exempts itself from legislation in many instances,
Lincoln violated the Constitution during the Civil War, and the second
amendment has been violated with every gun ban in the country.  Note
that Ted Kennedy has armed bodyguards, who carry illegal guns while in
Washington D.C., yet it seems to be legal for him.  If he has the
power to keep armed bodyguards, my lone voice of disapproval means
nothing.  If he doesn't have the power to contest me, then my view
might have some influence behind it.  Since it doesn't, I am not
willing to carry a gun in Washington, D.C. and claim the same rights
as Ted Kennedy's bodyguards.  They wouldn't go to jail, but I will.
Do you see the difference between rights and power to enforce them?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >