From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Fantasy vs. Ethics.  Was: Closure on sport hunting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:11:27 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Mike's never said anything to me that would indicate that he 
rl> believes in either the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.  On the 
rl> other hand, he did tell me that he believes in demons.  More to 
rl> the point, the topic of "demons" arose as a direct consequence of 
rl> his claim that "god" approves of his hunting practices.

From article <16edprINN7m9@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Russell, how many times do I have to ask you to PROVE that I said
ml> I believe in demons, goblins, ghosts and goddesses to you?  Are 
ml> you going to continue to claim that I said these things to you 
ml> without proving I did as I ask?  Have you no integrity?  Why don't
ml> you PROVE that you are not a liar by producing the posts or e-mail
ml> that I said these things to you?  

You mentioned just the other day in article <15rin4INNbq7@agate.  
berkeley.edu> that you believe all the statements that are in 
your bible.  Since your bible states that entities like demons, 
ghosts, spirits, and such, really do exist, it seems reasonable 
to conclude that you also believe in the existence of these 
spirit-forms.  The underlying logical principle that would lead to 
such a conclusion is called the "syllogism".  As such, it's 
hardly a lie for me to point out your belief in spirits, given 
your belief in the literal accuracy of the bible.  

You've been claiming that I'm making you look silly by commenting 
on your credulity re: ghosts, goblins, and so on.  Yet, you 
yourself continue to cite good and evil spirits as the primary 
determinants of ethical decisions.  Were you under the impression 
that you could engage in some spirit-related activity (witch 
burning, for instance) and get away with no questions asked 
simply be proclaiming that you were obeying the orders of "god"?  

> ...
rl> My position isn't religious.  Your assumption that all 
rl> discussions about ethical judgments must arise from religious 
rl> beliefs reveals your historical and philsophical naivete.  

ml> Ah, but the almighty empirical fact that Russell Lawrence
ml> worships so cannot be applied for the most part to ethics.  

Yes, it certainly does apply to ethics.  Let's examine a case in 
point.  Let's assume that you really do believe all biblical 
statements, and hence, also believe that disease is caused by 
demonic infestations.  If it were true that witches could bring 
about these sickness-causing demonic infestations, then I might 
agree with your "god's" commandment, "Thou shalt not suffer a 
witch to live".  As it is, however, no evidence exists to prove 
the biblical assumptions about the magical power of witches, so 
you might be on shaky ethical ground if you were to set out on a 
modern-day witch burning spree.  

On the other hand, there's quite a bit of evidence to indicate
that Treponema pallidum causes syphilis, which ultimately 
culminates in what might appear to be "demonic" fits (the result
of neurological damage).  Consequently, I'd be on very solid
ground if I were to declare that anyone who knowingly transmit 
the Treponema spirochete is behaving unethically. 

ml> If a father of five were to shoot Russell in his head and then 
ml> proceed in eat him with his family, would this be "wrong" or 
ml> "bad"?  I would say so unless they had no other means of survival.  
ml> The dogs that live with Russell might think so.  But, from the 
ml> family's perspective it may not.  And who knows who else would 
ml> agree with the family's actions.  Can you PROVE with any 
ml> empirical facts that such an act would be absolutely "wrong" or 
ml> "bad" Russell?  

As I've pointed out repeatedly, I have no need to prove that an action
is "absolutely" wrong.  To the contrary, all I need to prove is that
the class of actions have consequences that cause more harm than good.  

Incidently, you've made it clear that you don't respect the 
concept of animal rights, but you've been rather secretive in 
addressing my allegation that you don't have much respect for 
human rights either, but instead pay consistent hommage to 
"god's rights", as interpreted by Mike Linan.  If you have the 
courage to do so, please address the question that I've posed 
several times previously: 

If "god" were to command you to kill a group of men, women, and 
children, while refusing to explain his reasons, would you obey 
command?  Or, would you disobey?  Would you agree with me that
my body is the property of my mind?  Or would you be inclined to
believe that my body is the property of some "god"?

ml> Oh and don't forget I waiting for you to prove that I told you I
ml> believe in goblins.  

I'm waiting for you to explain the difference between demons and
goblins.  If I were to say that a frenchman who thinks the way you
do believes in "le bon dieu" (ie "the benevolent god"), would you 
quibble about the differences between his belief in "dieu" and 
your belief in "god"?  Or would you recognize the possibility 
that your beliefs might be the same, in spite of the superficial 
differences in your respective labels ("god" vs "dieu")?

If there's some sort of substantial difference between demons and 
goblins that would make the existence of the one seem reasonable 
and the existence of the other seem absurd, then I'd appreciate 
it if you'd fill me in on the facts.  Personally, I'm inclined to 
view both entities as imaginary fantasies conjured up by 
primitive minds to explain unusual or undesirable events.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals