From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Fantasy vs. Ethics.  Was: Closure on sport hunting
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:24:55 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>You mentioned just the other day in article <15rin4INNbq7@agate.  
>berkeley.edu> that you believe all the statements that are in 
>your bible.  Since your bible states that entities like demons, 
                                                         ^^^^^^
Russell, old friend, could you cite chapter and verse on this for an
old atheist like me?  You see, the parts of the bible I read have
never mentioned demons, and I'm skeptical about this, although I admit
that I haven't read any of it in a *long* time.


>ghosts, spirits, and such, really do exist, it seems reasonable 
>to conclude that you also believe in the existence of these 
>spirit-forms.  The underlying logical principle that would lead to 
>such a conclusion is called the "syllogism".  As such, it's 
>hardly a lie for me to point out your belief in spirits, given 
>your belief in the literal accuracy of the bible.  

Spirits are mentioned, but I've still never seen anything on demons.
Although I'm sure you're going to be a pal and cite something. ;-)


>You've been claiming that I'm making you look silly by commenting 
>on your credulity re: ghosts, goblins, and so on.  Yet, you 

Er, no, you're *trying* to make Mike look silly.  I'm not so sure
you're being effective.  Although you are indeed making *someone* look
silly. ;-)


>yourself continue to cite good and evil spirits as the primary 
>determinants of ethical decisions.  Were you under the impression 
>that you could engage in some spirit-related activity (witch 
>burning, for instance) and get away with no questions asked 
>simply be proclaiming that you were obeying the orders of "god"?  

[stuff deleted]

>ml> If a father of five were to shoot Russell in his head and then 
>ml> proceed in eat him with his family, would this be "wrong" or 
>ml> "bad"?  I would say so unless they had no other means of survival.  
>ml> The dogs that live with Russell might think so.  But, from the 
>ml> family's perspective it may not.  And who knows who else would 
>ml> agree with the family's actions.  Can you PROVE with any 
>ml> empirical facts that such an act would be absolutely "wrong" or 
>ml> "bad" Russell?  
>
>As I've pointed out repeatedly, I have no need to prove that an action
>is "absolutely" wrong.  To the contrary, all I need to prove is that
>the class of actions have consequences that cause more harm than good.  

But you do indeed need to prove it causes "more harm than good" in an
*absolute* sense, or else the terms "more" and "less" are meaningless.


>Incidently, you've made it clear that you don't respect the 
>concept of animal rights, but you've been rather secretive in 
>addressing my allegation that you don't have much respect for 
>human rights either, but instead pay consistent hommage to 
>"god's rights", as interpreted by Mike Linan.  If you have the 
>courage to do so, please address the question that I've posed 
>several times previously: 
>
>If "god" were to command you to kill a group of men, women, and 
>children, while refusing to explain his reasons, would you obey 
>command?  Or, would you disobey?

Does this serve any more purpose than your Space Invaders question?
What makes you think that when "God" tells Mike to kill these people
that "God" would not have a valid reason for doing so, such as these
"men, women, and children" are all ax-murderers, in which case Mike
might be justified in following "God's" orders?


>  Would you agree with me that
>my body is the property of my mind?  Or would you be inclined to
>believe that my body is the property of some "god"?
>
>ml> Oh and don't forget I waiting for you to prove that I told you I
>ml> believe in goblins.  
>
>I'm waiting for you to explain the difference between demons and
>goblins.

And I'm still waiting for you to show that Mike said he believes in
*either* of them.  Chapter and verse, Russell.  That will clear it up
(at least for me).  We all know that Mike never *explicitly* said he
believes in either.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--