Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Notes on Last Few Submissions
Message-ID: <824@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 17:45:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.824
Posted: Tue Jul  3 17:45:38 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 00:30:53 EDT
References: <2050@decwrl.UUCP> <1724@seismo.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 44

I know I promised to refrain from this kind of posting, but, a la Dubuc,
believe me!  this is the last one!!! (from now on I'll use personal mail?)

Bostic's reductio ad absurdam of all ethics is not only crude but absurd:
because we wage war or Aztecs plucked hearts out of the devout, morality
is arbitrary, nothing more than a culture's prejudices.  That's all, folks!
There's nothing more to discuss.  So, SHUT UP!  & don't you think you can
exert any claims over me, dammit! (I'm exaggerating a wee bit.)

Unfortunately, most of the rest of us don't share such a view of the nature
of morals (values).  Including most philosophers, jurists, anthropologists,
voters, etc.  It's hardly self-evident.

Given the content and tone of Bostic's submissions, I wonder whether he
takes so crude a relativist position because he thinks it's true, or
because it provides him such a nifty weapon to flame and tell his victims
they ought to thank him for teaching them a thing or two.

Years ago, Bostic's point would be called a "shutup ploy", that is, some-
thing posing as an argument whose real aim is to supress discussion.

I wonder if he considesr himself a proponent of "individual rights"?  This
is a newish ideology which attacks the notion of "rights" as meaningless
and believes law consists only in protecting individuals from interference
as long as their activities don't harm others: such protection is called
"individual rights".  To me it sounds like warmed-over Ayn Randism (for a
devastating critique of AR by a sophisticated libertarian, see philosopher
Robert Nozick's writings), but I mention it because it seems quite a few
gays, including some activists, are now adopting such a position (see Larry
Bush's article on the Gay GOP in the recent VILLAGE VOICE).

IRism seems to me to involve an extraordinary phobia: a terrific resentment
against anyone (or group) holding a moral claim over you.  It's a very
convenient ideology for members of the victimizing majority: it allows
them to discount all those clamoring minorities while at the same time
discarding all those superfluous laws and agencies.

But someone else will have to discuss this.  I'm only dealing in REAL
issues from now on (sorry for all the litter I've dumped on this list).

					"Let me be brief...." :

					Cheers,
					Ron Rizzo