From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Philosophy 101 
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:36:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.180933.23666@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Instead of a Phil. 101 number on "Does Free Will Exist?", I'd
>like to see some discussion on to what extent one is free to
>make moral judgments in what we usually think of as human
>society.  

Are you saying that you think that making free judgements is dependent on 
whether one is in a society or not?  Why not first ask the question of 
whether people are generally capable of making choices based on evidence
and then on that basis, try to determine whether social interactions 
somehow short-circuit that ability.

By the way, how do you claim to be able to make such a determination of
fact if your thinking is determined by socialization rather than by 
observation and reason?  If your marxist associates have prevented you from
seeing the truth, I suppose that is the best that can be expected, eh?

>It's _possible_ that Brian Yoder would autonomously
>reject racism in the midst of a thoroughly racist society,
>but it's extremely unlikely.  

If only social pressures have the power to result in individual thoughts, 
how does change in the status quo ever arise in the first place?  And how
could you know it if you didn't have the power to observe and reason?
I suppose your marxist polylogistic prejudices have blinded you to the truth.

By the way, I thought it was your position that the United States IS a
racist society.  So how is it that I have anti-racist ideas?  If the United
States is a mixed-economy country, how is it that I am a radical capitalist?
If the United States is predominately religious and I have had a religious
upbringing, how is it that I am an atheist?  If I grew up in a rural community,
how is it that I can enjoy living in LA?  

How can scientists make new discoveries is social consensus is the only way
people come to know things?  

You have a lot of counter-evidence to overcome.  By the way, according to 
your own theory, your conclusions ought to be considered inapplicable since 
they are necessarily simply restatements of ideas you have absorbed from
the culture at large rather than rational conclusions based on a rational
evaluation of the evidence.

>Moreover, even if he did reject
>it in thought, he might consent to be a part of a community
>which practiced it; he might not have a lot of choice.  

Look, this society contains both racists and non-racists.  Clearly, some 
people become one and some become the other.  You seem to discount individual
choice and knowledge in this entirely, so what makes the difference?  How
many racists you knew when growing up?  How did the first racist come to
exist if he didn't learn it from his neighbors?  How about the first non-racist?
Or the first chemist?  Or the first theist?  Or the first mathematician?

>I think that was the original idea of mentioning "conditioning"
>which seems to have been an unfortunate choice of words.

>Brian, what about the powerful effects of social pressure
>on all of us, and even when we resist them, what about the
>many, the majority, who do not?

What about social pressures?  Certainly such pressures exist, but so what?
There are a lot of weak-minded people out there who don't bother to think
for themselves, but that is not a proof that they do not posess that capability
or that such activities are impossible.

--Brian
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7968 talk.politics.theory:4451