Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ariel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!norm
From: norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: From Paul Torek #10 -- the second argument, approach #1
Message-ID: <471@ariel.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Sep-83 11:47:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: ariel.471
Posted: Thu Sep 29 11:47:32 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Sep-83 23:03:05 EDT
References: <1116@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T-ISL, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 9

Re Ann and Bob's supposedly contradictory views:  Neither of them really says
"My welfare is most important".  What they really say is "My welfare is most
important TO ME", and there is no contradiction in that.  They both can say
that, and can both be correct.  Don't fall into Torek's fallacy of using
standards of importance that are "intrinsic" or that are outside of the
individual frames of reference of Ann and Bob.  There is nothing non-objective
in refering values to the standard of an individual living beings personal
welfare...
--Norm Andrews, AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel, New Jersey