Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: A defense of the middle ground
Message-ID: <862@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Aug-83 06:22:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.862
Posted: Sat Aug 13 06:22:50 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Aug-83 07:36:22 EDT
References: <433@spanky.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 32

Kenneth, you are doing it again.

I am referring to:

	To illustrate my point, Tom, I would like to point out
	that you yourself advocate a position somewhere between pure altruism
	and pure selfishness.

	Now I'm sure that you will disagree with this claim, so permit me to
	procede slowly.  First let me define altruism and selfishness as I use
	the terms in this article.  

This is dirty pool. Tom has already gone to considerable trouble to
define altruism and selfishness. You do not even have the grace to
use new words. You get to define altrusim and selfishness, and then
all your proof falls out. This is *NO GOOD*. 

If you can prove from general principles that your definition of
altruism is THE definition of altrusim, you can get away with it.
Good Luck, philosophers and theologians have been arguing this for
centuries and we still are not very far.

Sometimes language is confusing, but that does not give you the
freedom to change the definition of the terms that someone else has
used and hold them to it, unless you can prove to them that your
definition is logically equivalent to their definition. The normal
reaction of someone who has had their words twisted in this way is
to pack up their marbles and go home, you know -- do you really
want to provoke this reaction in every one you argue with?

laura creighton
utcsstat!laura