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.politics
Subject: Re: Societal consensus as a basis for law
Message-ID: <847@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Aug-83 23:29:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.847
Posted: Wed Aug 10 23:29:18 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Aug-83 00:44:38 EDT
References: <835@utcsstat.UUCP>, <553@grkermit.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 45

I do not think that the "Golden Rule" is workable. It depends on
everyone having the same mind-set. Paul Torek and Tim Craver in
net.philosophy are demonstrating that this is not the case in a relatively
small area such as the United States. Tim Craver is proposing selfishness
as a basis for actions. Paul Torek is proposing Utilitarianism, but is
mostly arguing altruism. They are being relatively civilised about this
though Tim Craver has contended that there is no middle ground between
them. Why is it working? Because they are both respecting each other's freedom.

I am now going to invent 2 people. TC is a grossly-exagerated Tim Craver.
PT is a grossly exagerated Paul Torek. Neither PT nor TC exist, and neither
PT nor TC have any respect for each other's freedom. They are both fanatically
convinced that they are correct.

Now you meet TC. He evaluates your miserable Golden Rule philosophy and thinks
it stinks. He decides that you are not worth keeping around for the laughs,
and his sincere opinion is that you should kill yourself to save him the
trouble. Does your opinion of what to do to either a) yourself or b) him
change because of his opinion of you? Now PT enters the scene.
He decides that there is some hope for you, but that for the good of
mankind, TC should be killed. He asks you to help him. Now what do
you do? What if you are in a society which is full of TCs or PTs??

Any philosophy which is dependant upon the opinions of other people
has this problem. Your modified Golden Rule shares this. If you only
say that it boils down to "Do whatever you think is right to other
people" then you have just given TC and PT the freedom to kill each other,
and maybe you. You have also ducked the real question, "How do you 
formulate a morality system?"

I think that you have to do what is right because it is right. I have
yet to see anything more right than Freedom. (If you know something
that is, let me know, please.)

You still have not said anything about why Tim Maroney's definition of
freedom is any more subjective than your concept of "as you would have
others do unto you if you were in their position". I would have an
easier time with whatever list of rights Tim Maroney might produce
as a formal definition of "Essential Rights" (supposing that he did
this) than I could with the prospect of understanding you and every other
human being on this planet in the hopes of understanding how I could
predict what I would like had I been in your (or anyone else's) position.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura