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: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:48:38 GMT

In article <pk27l6s@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.231303.10393@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>|> >When you cut through the crap, the real problem with your argument
>|> >is your formulation of the Golden Rule.  Instead of "Do unto others 
>|> >as you would have them do unto you" you want it to say "If you
>|> >claim to be willing to accept coercion in your own life, you may
>|> >coerce other people".
>|>
>|> I believe that that is what it implies, Mr. Livesey.
>
>Then you are incorrect.
Interesting. I don't believe so.

We're at the point now where we're just saying
"I'm right, you're wrong" to each other.

>   When you declare that you are *willing*
>to accept coercion in a part of your life, you are exercising
>your freedom to make that choice.   You are making a free-will
>choice to surrender some of your freedom of action to someone
>else.
No doubt.

>If you then *impose* that surrender on someone else, you are not 
>doing unto them as you be done to, because you are not allowing
>that person to make the free-will choice to surrender part
>of their freedom: you are *making* them surrender their freedom. 
Yes, quite true. However, if one would wish to have that
done to onself, then I believe that I am applying the golden rule.

>No, it is not irrelevant, for your formulation of the Golden
>Rule is just a trick to allow such people to make a one-way
>bet.
I could say similar things about you, sir. I would appreciate
it if you would refrain from implying that I am arguing in a
dishonest fashion.

I've deleted your argument because we're arguing in circles.
If we're going to get anywhere, we're going to have to do some
unambiguous definition of terms. It strikes me that symbolic logic
is the way to go.

The Golden Rule:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

My translation into symbolic logic:
Where P is a people variable. x is an action.
(x) (want(me,doto(me,(P),x))-->(doto((P),me,x)))

Where doto(a,b,c) is: b does c to a.
And want(a,b): a wants b to occur.
And: (P)(x) naturally means for all P,for all x.

I propose two potential values for x:
1) Allow to make own moral choices.
2) Force to be moral.

For 1 we get:
If I want people to allow me to make my own moral choices, I should permit
others to make their own moral choices.

For 2 we get:
If I want people to force me to be moral, I should force them to be moral.

I encourage you to post your own formulation of the Golden rule if
you disagree with mine. However, if you are prepared to grant my formulation,
the conclusion I have been drawing follows quite inevitably.

-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.
Newsgroups: rec.scouting,chi.general,alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.discrimination