From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 10:56:12 MST
lcorbin@tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) writes:
>are very puzzling to me. I have not been able to translate
>"X is wrong" into anything more definite (or as definite)
>as "the speaker disapproves of X".
That's not true. You had just posted a message which did translate
it into something more definite (and almost correct):
>Because the latter statement implies only the truth, namely
>that the speaker's and most people's *values* are violated
>by x. By speaking of something as MORALLY WRONG an effort
>is made to speak in the objective mode, so that what is
>conveyed is a claim, backed by the judgment and authority
>of the speaker, that x has a universal failing, and that
>anyone ought to be able to see that.
Saying that murder is wrong says several things that can probably be
tested, including:
- that societies which deter murder accomplish some generally agreed
upon goals better than societies that condone murder.
- that people feel an obligation to exert more effort at deterring murder
than would be the case if murder was merely distatefull in the way that
cauliflower is.
Anyone who is truly interested in a good description of what rights are
should ignore Lee's attempts at obfuscation and read David Friedman's paper
"A Positive Account of Property Rights" at:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Free Jon Johansen! http://www.rahul.net/pcm |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:22 MST