X-VMS-To: in%"ethics-l@polygraf.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sun, 5 Apr 1992 05:16:00 EST
From:         JIM DOWNEY <JDOWNEY@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>
Subject:      Feminism, Orwellian Authoritarianism or Ethical Foundations?
Comments: To: ethics-l%polygraf.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

Ed Nilges said:

> I believe that there are certain "Laws of Thought" which we violate at
> the peril of incoherence....an incoherence which ultimately is a
> threat to liberty.  In 1984, O'Brien tells Winston Smith that he
> is holding up four fingers when Winston sees 5, and O'Brien tells
> Winston that only the Party can make mathematical law.  We do not
> live in Orwell's superstate (give us a few more Iraqs, however, and
> we shall), but we do live in a society in which the notion of a
> correct mathematical theory (or a well written document) shall be
> encapsulated in object code inaccessible even to the technologists.

Either I am missing your point or buying into the idea of incoherence
that you have made...  This does not relate to the paragraph
preceeding this one (which I deleted), and it starts out with one point
and suddenly I'm in Orwell's _1984_...  Can you tell me how I/we got
here?

> Because of the structure of the world, computer science has long
> known a few things which can be readily taught.  There is a claim,
> promulgated by certain feminist writers on logic and computer
> science that this is oppressive, and your doubts
> remind me of these claims.

First, computer science can not know anything.  It is a field of study
and not an animate thinking body.  Now, if you are referencing those
who have expertise in computer science, then I would ask you to
delineate that knowledge...

As for relating my views on logic and computer science to certain
feminist writers, I would question your ability to do so since I have
not offered one view in any manner that could be said to incorporate
my doubts or perspective of logic and/or computer science...  I have been
debating ethical foundations, not logic or computer science...
Jumping to my views (or doubts) on either of the latter subjects isn't
feasible since we have not discussed either sufficiently to warrant
such a jump...

> I point to Orwell as showing how incoherence is much, much more
> oppressive than logic, and I also point to the situation of the
> average white-collar or pink-collar worker, who (thanks to the rush
> to computerize) is at times unable to form a coherent idea of her
> working environment (call Level 1 support at a certain Major
> Manufacturer for further enlightenment on this point.)

I'm not sure if your saying I have been incoherent, or that my views
represent some form of collective incoherence loosely bonded to
feminism and a total authoritarian state, or what...

If it is the former, then I would appeal to other list members to tell
me whether I have plummeted off a deep end of cogent thought and am
now spewing forth sentences, and therein thoughts, that demonstrate a
loss of contact with reality... and if you are affirmed, I will seek
medical attention for I must be in dire need of some... :)

If it is the former, I would appeal to you to make clear the linkages and
connections that thrust me into the collective incoherence and joined
me to both the feminists and Orwellians of the world.

>>Being a nature theorist in ethical orientation, I reject Kant's idea
>>of a moral imperative...  Kant made the claim that morality was and had
>>to be exactly the same for everyone or else it was not moral...  I make
>>the statement that there are universal laws of nature (which are exposed
>>through the study and development of the arts and sciences), that there
>>are certain rights inherent in being human, and that individual vision
>>and/or choice may at times have precedence over the society...

> Hmm, you make Kant an apologist for East Germany.  Isn't my reading
> of Kant (that the categorical imperative tells us what is a moral
> law) liberatory, and a basis for giving the individual precedence
> over society?

I don't know... Tell me, what is your reading of Kant.  (I use this
poking-fun tactic, much as did Socrates, to demonstrate that once
again you have become the central point, the hub, of the
interpretation...  You consistently return to the foundations of
subjectivism, ethical egoism and/or cultural relativism to make your
points.)

> For Kant allows me to transgress rules (such as "get
> to work by nine after working until 3 AM" or "do not sit in the
> colored section if you are white and vice-versa) because I can
> demonstrate that they are OF NECESSITY nonuniversal.  Damn few rules
> pass Kant's test, less a test of persons than of the texts of rules;
> perhaps only the Sermon on the Mount.

Right... very few rules pass Kant's test and therefore his ethical
theory is impractical...  I would also offer the idea, and this is a
hotly debated area in the field of ethics, that Kant is far too often
misread, misunderstood and misrepresented...

> No, I feel that there's a way of interpreting Kant that is workable.

We can re-interpret Kant all we want, but no matter how we try to
apply his approach it fails... It is impractical and unworkable in
application...  It is a program that has a basic logic but is missing
a few loops :)

> You forgot Plato who in reality lurks behind these ideals.  Whose

I didn't forget him, I dismissed him... His ABSOLUTE FORMS and
inability to perceive the real world makes me nervous to the point
where, if I adopted his views, I would question whether or not we are
enagaging in discourse... In which case I could just as easily adopt the
philosphical (and practical) arguments of Bette Midler when she says
in resignation, "Why bother?!" (c.f. Bette Midler, _MUD WILL BE FLUNG
TONIGHT_)