From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:45:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.200436.566@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.154723.21575@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>This argument started with someone claiming that the golden rule
>>prohibited coercing homosexuals to become straight. I pointed
>>out that the same argument could be used to come to the conclusion
>>that the Golden Rule REQUIRES you to coerce homosexuals to become
>>straight.
>
>That someone was me. I replied that you had to honestly try to assume
>the viewpoint of the other. I still don't think Eric has adequately
>addressed this point.
I don't think you've provided any way to tell the difference. You're
just engaging in special pleading.

That's objection number one. Objection number two is that the
GR doesn't say anything about you "assuming the viewpoint of another."
You put that in yourself.

>	Take the viewpoint of the gay, as he would see the situation
>	if he but knew God's Truth (tm).
>	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>	In that case, the gay would want to be cured, even forcibly.
>
>	Hence, the right thing to do is simply attempt to cure him,
>	even over his objections.
>
>Note the ^^^. They haven't tried to assume the viewpoint of the other,
>they have dismissed it, and substituted their own. It is certainly true
>that someone who habitually dismisses viewpoints they disagree with will
>be able to use the GR to justify all sorts of things, in fact, anything
>they personally think should be done.
Precisely. So what's your point?
That's why the GR is useless.

I'm not going to bicker with you on this point, because it's trivial
to reformulate my objection it as:

Force me to be moral--which isn't broken by your objection.

>>Which one you substitute depends entirely upon your assumption set.
>
>Right. When I apply the GR, I try to use the others assumptions about
>the world, as far as possible. Yes, there are complications. Yes, there
>can be ambiguities.
Yes, and you are forced to apply all sorts of disambiguating rules
which aren't part of the GR itself.
Those assumptions aren't commonly accepted. Many Christians don't.
Hence my original objection.

>None of these things are flawed, simply because fundamentalists find
>difficulty in honoring them. The fault lies not in the Golden Rule,
>but in their own concrete skulls. To apply the Golden Rule, you must
>admit that other viewpoints exist, and honor them. This the fundamentalist
>cannot do.
The fault, sir, lies in your attempt to derive logically conclusions
from the GR that do not follow without hidden assumptions. I'm just
pointing them out.

I posted a symbolic logic version of the rule a few days ago.
You would go a long way towards addressing my objection if you
addressed it.

>Eric has also complained that their are areas where the application is
>ambiguous.
I think there are few areas where the application ISN'T ambiguous.

> The world is an ambiguous place, and a reasonably complete
>world view will have areas of ambiguity in it.
Ambiguous moral rules are worthless.

>I don't know what Eric means when he says he doesn't believe in morality;
It's quite simple. I don't believe in morality.

>I presume he would feel outraged if he came home to find his house
>burgled, and would feel that it was within his rights to have the perp
>prosecuted.
I'd be pissed. Emotional responses are not proof of morality.
I would have the LEGAL right to have the perp prosecuted.

> I also assume he would 'feel bad' if he discovered that
>carelessness on his part while fixing a CM400 led to a fatal accident.
>Care to clarify, Eric?
Since a CM400 is a motorcycle, any carelessness on fixing it is likely
to lead to ME expiring in a fatal accident, which is something I
would be unlikely to feel bad about.

However, yes, I would feel bad. That's an emotional reaction too.
I would not say in either case that someone was "right" or "wrong".
Like I said, I don't believe in morality.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.