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: 2nd reply to Kenneth Almquist Message-ID: <853@utcsstat.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Aug-83 15:22:50 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsstat.853 Posted: Fri Aug 12 15:22:50 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Aug-83 19:32:22 EDT Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada Lines: 304 Kenneth Almquist writes: To begin with, let me comment that for you to say that you base all your positions on the concept of freedom tells me next to nothing. Most moral questions can be posed in terms of conflicting freedoms, so that the real question is how you resolve these conflicts. Most people have used either philosophy or theology to examine such questions. I have (unfortunately) discovered philosophy comparatively recently, so I cannot present a purely philosophical basis for my beliefs. I lack the philosophical background and the understanding of the framework in which one discusses these beliefs. Alan Wexelblat and Paul Torek seem to be the resident philosophers (though I *know* there are more of you reading net.philosophy!), perhaps you should move there with this question and ask them. I have got where i am through theology. What I personally believe I am not willing to discuss. I do not belong to any Church, and do not believe in an anthropomorphous deity, and I do not feel compelled to proselytise. The only framework I have for presenting how I resolves conflicts in freedoms in its entirity is one of a Master/student relationship. I do not want to initiate this with anyone, since I do not think that I would make a very satisfactory Master. I, too, am learning. back to you: Let us take as an example somebody who feels like throwing a rock off the Empire State building. Kenneth, did you read my original article in net.flame? I had a rather long introduction to it. In it I warned the readers that there is a chance that what you mean when you use the word 'freedom' is 'irresponsibility'. I told you and everyone else that my definition of freedom was not distinct from my definition of responsibility. They two words are very synonymous to me. Perhaps I should have invented words to use; i did consider doing so. Anyone who is throwing rocks off the Empire State Building is being irresponsible. He is either ignorant, or evil. I am sorry if you do not like that last word, but I do not have a better one. There is no question that throwing rocks off The Empire State Building is a good way to kill someone. Ignorance can be remedied rather easily, but evil is a lot harder. I have met extremely evil people where I am not sure that it *can* be remedied. I intend to protect myself and others from evil and see no conflict in doing so. If the evil person is reformable, then I am also doing him a favour as well. I have yet to see a free evil person, and I have read many proofs that this is impossible. Until I see any contradictory evidence I believe this is a truth, as true as (say) the gravitational constant. back to you: you would ignore the potential harm to people on the ground because this harm might never actually occur. Therefore you would oppose prohibiting people from throwing rocks off the Empire State building. No. This is not what I am saying at all. On the other hand, I have no fundamental moral principle *against* throwing rocks off the Empire State building. If you had a good reason to do this (say you wanted to do this for a documentary describing WHY you SHOULD NOT throw rocks off the Empire State building) you should clear the surrounding ground from people so that you will not injure them. How can you deal with the real world, which is very often uncertain, if you limit yourself to statements that are known to be true or false? Like everybody else, you hope (and perhaps pray) that you are making the right decision when there is not sufficient evidence. Do you make hard and fast decisions when the truth is not known? How guilty must you feel when you are wrong. Some questions are not likely to be known for some time (Quick! Is there intelligent life on the planets which may be orbiting around Barnard's Star?) but there are others which seem decidable rather quickly. In the mean time, I will wait, and not pass judgement. Medical studies are usually based upon statistical analysis, so you will never get a definite statement on the effects of ambient smoke. The best a statistician can do is to say, "It is highly probable that ambient smoke is harmful." This is good enough for me. Actually, my father has produced some rather definite results on the effects of various drugs on the brain, so your statement, while true in many cases, is not true in all. All of the effects of PCP on the brain are not known, but my father can predict that you will hallucinate. OK, now let's discuss the difference between a legal system and a moral system as I use the terms. I do not understand you whole argument very well. I will poke at the parts that do not make sense to me in the hope that you will understand me better. If you prefer not to include the judges as part of the legal system and view a legal system simply as a set of rules, fine. I could argue either with or without the judges. For simplicity's sake let us leave them out of it. But you have to realize that the purpose of these rules is to allow judges to render decisions and that these rules are only concerned with that purpose. A moral system says that an action is wrong, a legal system does not. I'm quite certain that if you look up the law in Canada on stealing, you will find that it says nothing about whether stealing is right or wrong. It directs judges to send people to steal to jail and Do you think that the legal system is founded without a purpose? Is it entirely random in deciding what is a crime? Get serious. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is a pretty good way of saying "These things are RIGHT and we don't even have to say WHY they are right, because they are so OBVIOUSLY right". Note the etymology of the word "right" (as in Bill of Rights). The relationship between moral and legal systems stems from the fact that, just as a moral system can pass judgement on an act like stealing, it can also pass judgement on a legal system. All this means is that there can be multiple moral systems. Mine (for instance) is not the same on as the legal system. I never denied this. Therefore, it is possible to base a legal system on a moral system. For example, if a moral system states That stealing is seriously wrong and that people who perform acts which are seriously wrong should be sent to jail, then we can direct our judicial system to send people to jail. Real legal systems, however, are not based upon a single moral system. A society in practice contains many different moral systems but one legal system; therefore the legal system which actually evolves attempts to be fairly consonant with a variety of moral systems. You are being silly here. A moral system which uses some aspects of other moral systems is in no way not a moral system. Try again. You yourself oppose the notion that everything that is not illegal (a legal concept) is morally OK (a moral concept). That notion is a tautology if you believe that the legal system is a moral system; it is nonsense if you recognize that "illegal" and "immoral" mean two different things. i do not recognise this. I do recognise that what is termed "illegal" may not be immoral to me, but it is immoral to somebody, and it is usually claimed to be immoral to most people. Do not confuse my personal morality with the laws of the land. If you value freedom then there is a very good reason for you to avoid proposing laws written in the form of "thou shalt not" rather than "thou shalt." A law of the former type typically decreases your freedom of choice by eliminating one option. A law of the latter type eliminates all but one option and therefore allows no individual choice whatsoever. Therefore, while there may be exceptions, legal systems which rely heavily on laws of the form "thou shalt" are not likely to provide a lot of freedom. I believe that you are contradicting yourself here. (I feel like an ancient card reader. "Programmer error -- please repunch card and resubmit"). Now, on to your third reason. Societal consensus is not sufficient justification for laws. (Well, we have finally hit the meat of the matter.) I agree that the majority is not always right. I am very glad to hear this. I suspect that you missed my point. If, as is likely, the Ontario censor board censors films which people may freely choose not to watch, then I agree with you. If, on the other hand, it censors public billboards which people cannot easily avoid viewing, there would seem to be little point the censor board issuing 'book reviews' on the billboards. Again, I am glad that you agree with me. How many times have you been forced to go to a movie? Advertisement deserves its own discussion somewhere. If you are serious about this, please present it somewhere else, separately. People are already complaining that these news articles are too long. You have gotten yourself into a real tangle here. 1. If you pass a law against smoking you are declaring it wrong. That is your interpretation of what I am saying. Maybe I'm just passing a law without saying anything at all. **Pfui!*** 2. I do not think smoking is wrong. **No, I do not think that there is enough evidence to prove that smoking is harmful to non-smokers (notice, I do think that there *has* been enough evidence to prove that smoking is harmful to smokers). this is not semantically equivalent. 3. [Therefore, you should not say that it is wrong.] Now you are attacking my right to free speech, which is probably not your intention. No, I am not attacking your right to free speech. You can say whatever you want. I am not obligated to help you make stupid laws on the basis of your silly beliefs, however. This appears to be another example of the confusion which arises when you fail to distinguish between moral and legal systems. Why don't you talk about the effects of law? Try starting out with, "It is immoral to punish people for smoking." BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THIS! I AM INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING "Societal Consensus is not sufficient basis for Law". If *you* want to discuss the morality of punishment, go right ahead, but this is not the same thing at all. The purpose of relying on precedents is to avoid remaking the same decision over and over again. To overturn a precedent, a judge simply decides that a prior decision was wrong. A judge will always adhere to the ruling of a higher court because otherwise the higher court will overturn the judge's decision if it is being consistent. Thus the whole purpose of precedents is to make the system more efficient. Really, now, when you are discussing a proposed new legal system there is no reason to stay within the limitations of the old ones. I would just say that you have presented a proof that the purpose of presidents is to make a legal decisions (the manifestation of the legal system) more consistent. This says nothing about efficiency. Can you envision a computer that can do calculus faster from general principles than I can do with 900 'proved' theorems? (chuckle. I am lousy at Calculus except from general principles. I forget the signs of things. If you can think of a TRS80 with 48K, you can envision the right sort of computer). In the case of a law prohibiting public smoking, there would be no need to look up lots of precedents after the first trial. I don't think that such a law would overload the legal system. Wrong. Murder is illegal, right? And how many murderers get smart lawyers which get them off, or get them a reduced sentence? I expect to see not guilty of smoking by reason of insanity, mental cruelty, addiction and a thousand tries at proving it unconstitutional. Everyone will have their own twist as to why it is unconstitutional. Perhaps we could survive one more law -- but can we keep doing this forever? You don't talk about public areas here. I guess you can handle them by avoiding public places when they are filled with smoke. Well, it's noble of you not to want to curtail other people with your personal decision, but what about the person who smokes in a public place? Why should your freedom to go to public places be curtailed by his personal decision to smoke? Why should his freedom to smoke be curtailed by your dislike of it? The question goes both ways. please do not cloud the issue. If individuals who own public areas wish to set aside 'no smoking' areas I am grateful to them. What I am opposing is LEGISLATION forcing them to do this. Please maintain the distinction. Perhaps you are deifying governments rather than just considering them another example of a humans organization. (Emphatically, no.) Any organization, not just a government, may amass a great deal of power. Once that happens the actions of that organization have the potential to be very harmful (as well as very helpful). Never the less, there is nothing inherently wrong with a very powerful organization accomplishing a goal unless there is something wrong with the goal or the means used to achieve it. Now please explain to me why curtailing the freedom of smokers is not wrong. Do you believe that the government has fulfilled its obligations by informing citizens of the situation so that they can make an informed decision as to whether or not to swim? Do you believe that the fact that some people may find not being able to swim objectionable is not sufficient reason to pass a law prohibiting people from polluting the lake? If not, there is yet hope for you. i am glad that you think there is hope for me. i think that there is hope for you as well. Pollution is irresponsible. By definition, there is no 'freedom to pollute'. There is sufficient reason to prevent people from polluting the lake. It is not 'that some people may find not being able to swim objectionable', though. Pollution is wrong, therefore some people object to it. It is not a reflexive relationship. TO EVERYONE: recently, in net.philosophy, some people have proposed words other than 'altruism' which Tim Craver and Paul Torek could use. Does anyone have a similar suggestion for me? laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura