HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Grounding morals
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:32:29 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1993Jan26.032035.13300@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>>There is a sense in which philosophy can not be escaped.  

>Ah haaaaaa! Watch me:

> philosophy 

No doubt this would be (a little) funnier if you could see the escape
characters:

^[philosophy^[

Oh well.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Abortion (was Vegetarianism)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:29:34 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1993Jan22.023819.1@oread.cc.ukans.edu> hippee@oread.cc.ukans.edu writes:

	 One must remember something with regard to abortion, etc.  The
	arguments that can be logically redered infavor of abortion, as i
	see it, are as follows:

	 We don't understand what actually confers life (in the sense that
	you mean it).  We do understand that some individuals possess a
	quality called life (i.e.  those who are born).  We are unsure if
	this quality is pre-labor.  

I don't have the foggiest notion what you're talking about. Of _course_ the
normal fetus is alive. If it's dead, it ordinarily undergoes spontaneous
abortion. These questions can be adequately answered by any course or
textbook in elementary biology. 

        Those recognized with the quality have
	certain claims within law (the proper study for such problems as
	abortion) to pursuit of happiness.  The most expedient (and
	utilitarian) way to handle the situation is to allow those who's
	claim to the quality is undisputed to have sway in the argument.

So you're saying that only people who can defend themselves (at least in a
legal sense, by pressing their claim) have legal rights? That omits
infants, of course--and toddlers up to about the age of two. Ditto for the
comatose, and heavy sleepers.

	 In my mind, the argument is not anything objective, it is,
	however, more expedient, an issue I have certain reservations
	about.  The best one might hope for is for the issue to remain open
	(choice) until such time as a reasonably sure guess can be made
	concerning the amount of "life" that a fetus partakes of.

You are saying that because you are in some way confused about the status
of unborn children, everyone should make up their own minds about whether
it's OK to kill them. That's a little disquieting--what if it turns out
that it's really _not_ OK to kill the unborn? After all, you say that you
don't know. Perhaps it would be better to err on the side of caution? 

Maybe it would help if you could be a little clearer in what way you
think a fetus might be deficient? What do you mean when you talk about
"life"? In what sense--other than a pathological one--might a fetus not be
alive?


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: Grounding morals
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:21:41 GMT


>My point is that there's a _huge_ difference between wanting to argue about
>whether "murder is wrong" and an actual, real live argument about morals.
>That's all.  Philosophers _love_ to talk about statements much like "what
>is good?," "what is justice?," or "why should I be good?". I think that in
>doing so, they forget the meaning of the words they're using, and so the
>discussion spins off into the weeds.

Then they are engaged in sophistry.  My arguments, my thinking, is
passionately directed toward action in the world.  The notion of
an ethical argument which does not result in (and is not aimed at)
real implementation -- seems silly to me.

>not even sure if they're _supposed_ to help me do this. (Kant, for example,
>would be quite happy if I were to regard his "categorical imperative" as
>being of purely philosophical interest, and not as a guide to action.)  To
>me, this is thin gruel, and not the robust bread of reason. 

Well, at the risk of starting a flame war at the mere mention of a
name -- Rand does not expect you to take her moral code, her grounding
of ethics as being merely of 'purely philosophical interest'.  But
this orientation (of ethics as a system for REAL action) is grounded in
her meta-ethics -- which begins with the question: what is ethics for?
Do we need a moral code -- and why?

>Since I'm so dissatisfied with the answers, I turn to the
>question--questions of the form, "is x wrong?" or "what is 'wrong'?". What
>kind of question is this? Is it even a sensible question? Why would one ask
>such a question?  What does he want to understand or clarify?

This is wonderful!  This is precisely the right approach, I think!
Have you read Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics"?  She approaches the
subject in just this way!

In your example of the (possible) ineffectuality of argumentation,
you used a famous Nazi leader.  But it is important to understand
that such an evil person could not have gained power without the
prior intellectual disarmament of the ordinary people.  I think that
most ordinary people do respond well to philosophical argumentation,
and don't simply treat it as academic -- that is, IF the arguments
presented are applicable to human life on this earth, rather than
some who-knows-what!

--Jimbo
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: Grounding morals
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:23:29 GMT

>   Not directly, not immediately, not individually, of course.  But
>   intellectual arguments play a strong role in shaping culture, law,
>   etc.   If there is a failure among intellectuals (philosophers) in
>   defending (for example) the fundamental value of life, then a direct
>   result may be: Nazi gas chambers.  We've seen it happen.
>
>
>I don't know if it is in any way related to this issue but I
>once read a serie of interesting comments on this matter by
>Heisenberg (who lived in Germany during the second world war). 
>He suggested that intellectual arguments was part of the problem
>and that morality must be based in something beyond rational
>arguments. 

Then Heisenberg was just as much of an (intellectual) victim of the
doctrines he had taught as were the Nazis.  I know of no plausible view
of rationality that would lead one to think that the Nazis were 
_rational_!  It is precisely the placing of morality beyond rational
arguments that opens the door for the only known alternative: brute
force.  That is, if reason (i.e. discussion, debate, and the virtues
of tolerance presumed by the process) is abandoned, then what other
path is open?

>Now, I hope I haven't 'put my foot in my mouth' or whatever way
>the English proverb has it.

No, I don't think so.  The comment was interesting.

--Jimbo
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Vegitarianism
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:48:15 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to amc@wucs1.wustl.edu]
 
>>>Since animals are never responsible for their actions (is there anyone
>>>who doubts this?)
 
>>Me.  I don't see any evidence for a qualitative difference between the
>>consciousness of humans and that of other mammals, especially primates.
 
>If mammals are responsible for their actions, and therefore deserve
>rights, then any mammal who eats another mammal is guilty of murder.
>The lion who kills a gazelle commits an immoral act.  But that's how
>lions naturally survive.  Do you really want to blame the lion for
>this?
 
No, because in this case the lion doesn't have a choice.  He is an
obligate carnivore.  We are not.  It is true however that animals act
more from instinct than humans.  To the extent that their behavior is
programmed, they don't have free will.  Since we can only be held
responsible for our acts if they are committed with the exercise of free
will, animals are less responsible for their acts than humans.
 
Even if the animal killed has no rights or responsibilities, I still
don't think that relieves us of our moral obligation to not cause
suffering or deprive another sentient being of its life unnecessarily.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Abortion (was Vegetarianism)
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:17:05 GMT

In <1993Jan25.231311.46762@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> hippee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>The only question for me concerns the apparent choice which one has when
>one becomes "infected" with this particular parasite [an unborn child].
>I would, however, beg to remind anyone who would challenge on these
>grounds that would remove the lice from their hair, the worms from their
>dogs, and the ticks from their cat.

Your reminder would dispose of the matter if it were unreasonable to
believe that the unborn child is of more value than a louse, a worm or a
tick.  Is that your view?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Grounding morals
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:17:33 GMT

>>Why should we think that an argument is _required_ to prohibit murder,
>>or that a criterion must be found that confers a right to live?  Where
>>did we get the idea that philosophy ought to give us _reasons_ for the
>>simplest things?

The notion that an argument is required (desirable, good) to support
any particular course of action is grounded in the recognition that
humans a beings of a finite consciousness, able to make errors, and
not possessed of an automatic code of values.  Simply put, we are
human, we must decide what to do.

It is of course true that we could choose to pursue any old random
course of action, some course of action for which we can give no 
reasons.  But the nature of huamn life (conditional, often precarious)
on this planet (a nice place, but not a Garden of Eden where survival
is guaranteed) is such that random courses of action will not
likely be productive of anything other than pain, suffering, and
(ultimately) death.

There is a sense in which philosophy can not be escaped.  "There is
no escape from philosophy.  The question is only whether a philosophy
is conscious or not, whether it is good or bad, muddled or clear.  
Anyone who rejects philosophy is himself unconsciously practicing
a philosophy." (Karl Jaspers, Way to Wisdom)

Even your rejection of the notion that philosophical argument can
give us a guide to action is an (implicit) philosophical argument
giving you a guide to action.

--Jimbo
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:32:34 GMT
Organization: University Of Natal (Durban)
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc10.superbowl.und.ac.za

In article <1993Jan19.161211.6334@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>In article <AG.93Jan19102635@bugs.sics.se> ag@sics.se
>(Anders G|ransson) writes:
>...
>>Don't tell me that Russell was wrong about Pythagoras and beans:
>>
>>   "He (Pythagoras) founded a religion , of which the main tenets
>>    were the transmigration of souls and the sinfulness of eating
>>    beans"  (History of Western Philosophy)
>
>'Tis true: Pythagoras didn't know beans.
>

By all accounts Pythagoras took the bean think very seriously, and one
of the unusual rules of his school/sect was "abstain from beans."  Among
the many extraordinary stories about Pythagoras is one which tells of his
having extended coversations with a cow in the course of which he pursuaded
the cow to abstain from beans.  The story does not go on to say whether or
not Pythagoras eventually ate the cow.

As is all to often the case with the "History of Western Philosophy" Russell
is having so much fun with his writing style in the extract above that facts
tend to take second (or later) place.  It was in practice very hard to 
difficult to draw a distinction between the religion and the mathematics of
the pythagoreans, and other intellectuals of the time.  Don't forget that
irrational number were so called ("arratos") in the same sense as we would
call a person's behaviour irrational, and that members of the pythagorean
sect/school are said to have executed one of their number who let the secret
that there were such numbers become public knowledge.

o---------------------------------------------------------------------------o
| David Spurrett,   Philosophy  "It is the mark of an educated mind to seek |
| Dept,  Univ of Natal, Durban  in each  inquiry the sort of precision  the |
| spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za  nature of the subject permits." (Aristotle) |
o---------------------------------------------------------------------------o
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Vegitarianism
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:55:32 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1993Jan24.231140.3266@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
>[reply to cash@convex.com]
...

>Does anyone else see this flame as a little bizarre?  Who is this guy?

No one of consequence. Ignore the guy.
...
>Why this ad hominem attack?  Has something I've written offended you
>that much?  Do you hate atheists?  Vegetarians?  Or is this just your
>usual style?
...
>So come on, tell us.  What's really eating you about my post?

We seem to have a Misunderstanding. Nothing was further from my intentions
than to attack you personally, or ruffle your feelings. My profound,
contrite, humble and public apologies.










-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark Peterson)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Vegitarianism
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:37:28 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <C16vJo.KDy@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by roholdr@ccu.umanitoba.ca (R Ross Holder Jr):
> 
[...]

> I'm sure it's a product of being sentient; curiosity.  Hence we seek
> reasons.  At any rate, if we don't have reasons for not murdering people -
> some might be mistakenly led to conclude it would be okay.  As creatures
> of both instinct and reason, we have the capacity to distinguish pleasure
> from pain; good from evil.


So reason can allow us to distinguish good from evil?  Interesting.
How do you answer Nietzsche?

hiho
-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Mother Nature (was: Vegetarianism)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:50:33 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1993Jan25.215131.22811@wuecl.wustl.edu> amc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Adam Costello) writes:
...

>You talk as if the "environment" is some sort of being with its own
>desires.  

Exactly. I think that this is what lies behind the "green" movement--good
old Mother Nature--though she has adopted pseudonyms like "eco-system" and
"the environment". 

>"Environment" just means "surroundings".  Surroundings have
>to surround someone, namely the person uttering the word "environment".
>This person is the one who has desires.  If this person can change his
>environment, drastically, to better serve his desires, isn't that a
>good thing?

You're right, of course--that's the sensible, though prosaic, way to look
at it. But you won't find the greens agreeing with you. On the face of
it, their convictions seem odd to you and me--why should a merely physical
system somehow have its own value, its own justification; why should "the
environment" be a good in itself, quite apart from man?

>Put another way, you seem to think that the environment has value
>which is maximized when the environment is completely unaffected by
>humans.  But for something to have value, there has to be someone who
>values it.  Humans value their environment more than any other animals
>do, because humans make the most use of it.  Therefore, the value of
>the environment can be increased by the efforts of humans.

>To show that humans are "damaging" the environment, it is not enough
>to show that they are changing it drastically.  You have to show that
>they are changing it into something that is less valuable *to them*.

Again, quite right--but you're not going to convince anyone who thinks that
man is fundamentally in opposition to Nature, and that Nature is of itself
the highest good. I am convinced that this is the way the "greens" think.
Consider it a form of mysticism--a revival of pagan nature-worship. For
them, Nature is self-justifying and perfect--and any alteration of
Nature by man must be a dimunition of this perfection. The logical
conclusion is, of course, that the planet would be best served by the
extinction of the human race.

One can only wish they had the courage of their convictions...







-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Abortion (was Vegetarianism)
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:01:28 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <C1Itr4.M6t@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mfragass@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Fragassi) writes:

>	But then, the issue becomes whether one believes preservation of this
>potential is more important than the quality of the life of the mother and the
>child-to-be.

Here you seem to suggest an argument for abortion based on the quality
of life the child would have had if he had not been aborted.  There's
something puzzling about that line of thought in any but the hardest
cases (e.g., some congenital defect that would make the child's life
short and painful).  Is that really the sort of argument you have in
mind, or are you thinking instead of benefits to the quality of life of
other children (such as brothers and sisters who would be burdened in
some way by an additional sibling) or society at large?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: Grounding morals
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:31:31 GMT

>Sometimes I am of the opinion that reasons for human actions do not
>occur until after the experience of that action.  In other words,
>reasoning is not a way of deliberating, but rather a way of
>rationalizing actions that have already been performed.
>
>Any thoughts?

Well, it seems obvious that people do sometimes act in ways
that fit this description.  That is, people act while in a
relatively out-of-focus state, making some kind of decision
about action, but not a well thought out decision.  Then,
later, for psychological reasons (or some such), they backfit
an excuse, explanation, rationalization.

But, such a way of living doesn't seem well designed to generate
consistent well-being.  Decisions made in an out-of-focus state
are not likely to take into account all the relevant facts.  And
ex post rationalization may require something much worse than
being out-of-focus -- a conscious and deliberate self-deception
likely to cause worse problems in the future.
--Jimbo
c
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: szikopou@alfred.carleton.ca (Steven Zikopoulos)
Subject: patriarchy on parade
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:15:18 GMT




Here's a message I received today. Please add your support to it and help  
others:


|>From POMONA.CLAREMONT.EDU!JRYCENGA Wed Jan 20 11:52:44 1993
|
|For political activists, or media watchdogs, or just concerned
|women, here's a quick something you can do to help prevent
|and stop domestic violence.
|
|Super Bowl Sunday - which this year is January 31, here in southern
|California at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena - is the single worst day
|for domestic violence in the USA.  There is an increase of as much as 40%  
in the volume handled by domestic violence shelters on this
|day.
|
|To try to stem this tide of violence, the Women's Action Coalition
(WAC) of Los Angeles is supporting the campaign by Fairness and Accuracy  
in Reporting (FAIR) to convince NBC (the network carrying the game) to  
carry two Public Service Announcements on domestic violence during the  
Super Bowl this year.  Anna Quindlen of the New York Times wrote a fine  
editorial in the 1/17/93 edition of the Times supporting this effort as  
well.
|
|What I am asking of you - and all your friends (please PLEASE
cross-post this to _any_ lists you can think of) - is to help us with a  
FAX/LETTER blitz on NBC, asking for these PSA's.  Here is a sample letter:
|
|Dick Ebersol
|President, NBC Sports
|NBC
|30 Rockefeller Plaza
|New York, NY  10112
|
|Dear Mr. Ebersol:
|
|We (I) support FAIR's request that you air two Public Service
Announcements on domestic violence during the Super Bowl game.  The Super  
Bowl is one of the most widely viewed television events of the year; it is  
also the day, according to women's shelters, when calls for help increase  
by as much as 40%.
|
|Your broadcast of the Super Bowl will reach a huge audience.  By your  
airing PSAs, NBC will be bringing to a national audience the critical and  
important issue of domestic violence.
|
|Sincerely,
|
|
|   You can rephrase or rewrite this letter to your liking, but please FAX  
or write them immediately.
|
|To reach NBC by FAX:  212-664-5835.
|
|   Thanks for helping - you may save someone's life, or skeletal
structure, or eyesight.
|


Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc