From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 21:21:49 MST
gts writes
> > I apologize for the put-down
>
> Apology accepted.
Thank you. I'm sorry that I'm waxing a little too cantankerous
lately.
> > Okay, here was the *argument* I gave:
>
> [gts wrote]
> >> This is all there is to rights. There is nothing
> >> mystical about their existence. We can agree to the
> >> existence of moral truths in the same way that we can
> >> agree to the existence of mathematical truths, and with
> >> the same kind of realist interpretations.
>
> > Oh. Okay. Majority rule determines truth, eh?
>
> You've been accused more than once of misstating another person's
> position and I'm afraid this is yet another case.
Well, not really. I mean I quoted you, and then made a provocative
interpretation, and even supplied a question mark. I could have
had exactly the same effect by writing "You appear to be implying X."
> Nowhere in my words above did I state that majority opinion
> determines moral truth.
Yes, what I ought to have written is that a
consensus of mathematicians about a mathematical
truth is no proper parallel with a consensus of
individuals over so-called moral "truths".
> We drafted a Bill of Rights and created a Supreme Court
> to help us avoid the mob-rule that would result if we
> were to adopt such a view.
Yes, ever since there were communities, people
have had to come to an agreement over what the
rules would be. Majority views usually prevailed,
and I find nothing wrong per se with such. Now of
course, on any particular topic, e.g., slavery, I
might find myself in disagreement with society.
For all my vehement protesting, however, I would
never accuse the others of being simply incorrect,
as I would if they failed to realize that 36 + 64 = 100.
> I said that we can agree to the existence of moral
> truths in the same way that we agree to the existence
> of mathematical truths.
Whereas I see them as two entirely different kinds of
things. Mathematical truths can be *proved* (in the
non-formal sense of supplying rigorous and non-value
based argument accessible to everyone), and moral
truths *cannot*.
> e.g., "We hold these truths to be *self-evident*,
> that all men are created equal, that they are
> endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
> the pursuit of Happiness."
And naturally, if I had written it or had been
consulted, I would have avoided use of the word
"truths".
> From moral truths that we hold to be self-evident,
> we can create a system of laws and ethics, one that
> is grounded in realism rather than relativism.
And of course, I think it misguided to describe it
thus. (By the way, I do not consider myself a moral
relativist because they in general have the important
characteristic of being very tolerant towards things
that I thing ought to be abhorred. But on the
comparatively less important subject of ontology,
yeah, I guess I agree with them. I don't see no
rights either.)
> >... your so-called "moral truths"---just get the
> > right people to agree!
>
> The point I wish to make here is that by stating
> your disapproval of slavery, you are in effect
> asserting that you believe people have a right
> not to be enslaved,
I cannot stop you from translating it that way (so
that presumably it makes sense to you and your friends),
but I deny that there is anything such as rights in
the abstract (excepting legal rights).
> i.e., that you believe people have a right to
> be free. And yet from the other side of your
> mouth you are telling us that that in your
> opinion rights do not exist.
Well, if two Martians are talking to me, trying
to understand how I think, and one of them who is
puzzled is suddenly told by his friend, "He sees
others as cuzewhikemani", and the friend says,
"ah, oh now I see", then that does not mean that
I endorse whatever it was.
> Please differentiate between the meanings of
> these two sentences, the first of which you
> have claimed ownership but the second of
> which you deny:
>
> "I disapprove of slavery; I think blacks in
> America ought not have been enslaved."
>
> and
>
> "I disapprove of slavery; I think blacks in
> America had a natural right to be free prior
> to their legal emancipation."
The second one refers to something that I
have never found a referent for. I would
regard the sentence "I think blacks in
America were being unjustly treated in the
eyes of God". I can hardly endorse any
sentence that refers to entities that I
think don't exist.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:21 MST