Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!apollo!nelson_p
From: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: re Phil Ronzone's stereo
Message-ID: <481c7863.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Date: 18 Jan 90 16:48:00 GMT
Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 56



 Phil Ronzone posts....

>I assume by this unimaginative concept the American revolution
>would have never happened. Peter Nelson to the founding fathers ...

>  "Come guys -- give it up. Live in the real world. There have
>   always been Kings and Divine Right. There always will be.
>   Besides, the Kings has more soldiers than us. Get real."


 Mr. Ronzone and others on this net may be surprised that my
 *personal* moral values are probably not terribly different 
 from most other people's, or at least most people who have
 strong moral opinions about things.    Nor do I shrink easily
 from a fight with long odds against me.   ( if I did would I
 be posting articles critical of Objectivism and Libertarianism
 on alt.individualism???? )

 The SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION is whether a *universal* standard
 for ethical behavior can be derived from simple observations
 about objective reality.   Objectivists claim that not only
 can it be done, but that Objectivism does it.    I claim that
 neither Objectivism nor any other philosophy or religion 
 successfully derives a universal ethical standard.  

 Steve Mason was trying to support the objectivist viewpoint 
 when we last heard from him.  And David Friedman and Gene Ward
 Smith seem to be saying that the distinction between physical
 reality and consensual moral reality is a non-issue; that if
 moral truths are perceived as true by consent that this makes
 them as true as truths about physical objects.  [ correct me if
 I'm oversimplifying]  But it is not clear to me how they would
 use this to sort out differences of opinion on moral issues.  

 The odd thing is that, by this juncture Phil Ronzone seems to 
 be agreeing with me about the lack of a universal standard,
 whereas when he started off I thought he was defending O'ism:


> I assert that every human being has the right to their own life (as well
> as various classes of tangible property).
> A result of that assertion is that slavery, infanticide, Stalinism, Nazism,
> murder, etc. is WRONG because it violates that right.

> It IS an assertion. It is not engraved in rocks, it is not encoded in our
> genes.

> If you don't agree, that is YOUR business.


  ...which, of course, is how I claim the whole world works.


                                                     ---Peter