Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Laura's system is inconsistent (logic considered harmful)
Message-ID: <3670@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Mar-84 16:21:06 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3670
Posted: Sat Mar 31 16:21:06 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Mar-84 17:24:08 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 48

When one is presented with a proof using a given set of axioms and
inference rules, it's a good idea to see if that logical system is
consistent.  It is well known that one can prove anything in an
inconsistent system  (e.g. from the axiom 0=1 added to ordinary
arithmetic, one can prove anything about arithmetic).  Thus it is
proper to ask if Laura's system is consistent.

First, what is Laura's system?  The 3 axioms she presented translate
into a large number of statements.  The important axioms are 1 and 3:
Life is Good and There is an Objective Reality.  The latter admits all
the facts of the world that people agree on (water is necessary for life,
the earth is about 75% water, a rock released in mid-air will fall, ...).
Axiom 2, Human Life Is Good, follows from axiom 1 and the generally
agreed fact that humans are living, using an inference rule from ordinary
logic.

Laura hasn't explicitly given her inference rules, which are an important
part of any logical system, but I'll assume they are those of ordinary
first-order predicate logic, augmented by "common-sense" rules admitted
by axiom 3 (e.g. An agent for good is good, an agent for evil is evil).

I hope to show that Laura's system is inconsistent by showing that there
exists something that is both good and not good-- a contradiction.  That
thing is a male hunter of a primitive society, called "Fred".

Now, Fred hunts to feed his family.  The food that he provides allows them
to continue living.  Since life is good, Fred is clearly an agent for good.
Thus, Fred is good.

But, Fred *hunts* to feed his family.  This means that he kills deer,
rabbits, whatever comes along that will sustain his family.  He causes the
cessation of life.  Since the cessation of life is not good, Fred is
clearly an agent for "not-good" (read "evil").  Thus Fred is not good.

So Fred is both good and not good and we have a contradiction, leading
me to believe that Laura's system is inconsistent and not a sound basis
for argument.

Some of the details of this argument are worth mentioning...  the facts about
Fred are *givens*.  Saying "he could farm" is not a valid objection.  The
facts are as they are and the logical system is applied to those facts,
coming up with a contradiction.

The point is not to take a pot-shot a Laura's argument.  It is to show the
absurdity of arguing questions of the ethics of life with monotonic logic,
which doesn't allow the weighing of factors.

p. rowley, U. Toronto