Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhc!hpsemc!jat
From: jat@hpsemc.HP.COM (Joe Talmadge)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: re antirationalism
Message-ID: <9440033@hpsemc.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Jan 90 22:15:08 GMT
References: <8055@unix.SRI.COM>
Organization: the Airborne Toxic Event
Lines: 23

Michael --

Michael Ellis writes:
>     I don't honestly know how I could justify condemnations of these
>     horrors to any arbitrary person, I would have to know what a
>     person already accepted, and then try to work out from there.

Exactly!  When a person holds an ethical view, there's no objectively
certain principle you can point to and say, "Look here.  You're
wrong."  There isn't much *purely* objective persuasion you can do,
especially considering the important role subjective considerations
(emotions, etc.) play in ethical judgements. 

What you can do is show this person that his already-accepted ethical
principles lead to a support of your condemnation.  Or you can defend
your condemnation on the basis of its outcome, and hope this arbitrary
person has the same ethical judgement of the outcome as you do.


Joe Talmadge		  "They're not calling it a black billowing
jat@hpsemc.hp.com	     cloud anymore."
hplabs!hpda!hpsemc!jat 	   "What are they calling it?"
jat%hpsemc@hplabs.HP.COM   "The airborne toxic event."