Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihlpm!cher
From: cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Premises,Premises,Premises,...
Message-ID: <287@ihlpm.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Jun-85 09:17:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpm.287
Posted: Sat Jun  8 09:17:26 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 03:26:43 EDT
References: <593@sfmag.UUCP> <1048@pyuxd.UUCP> <597@sfmag.UUCP> <1059@pyuxd.UUCP <280@ihlpm.UUCP> <1067@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath net.religion.jewish:2099 net.philosophy:1886

> Until you or I can find a distinct difference between the two, we should
> continue to do so.    (of Samet's and Nazis' intolerance)

Sure, but I thought I found it (see below). You disagree with 
self-consistency test as the only way one can judge some morality system 
without using one's own morality to do it. All further disagreement stems 
from that.
And you show us your way (see below). I can not accept it and will tell why.

> > I do not see any other yardstick.   (me on self-consistency)
>
> How about how successfully the morality provides for the needs of all the
> people within the society?

I like it. I do. I really do. Do I like it! What else can I say to
justify acceptance of this dogma?

> It would be the view of every person if they thought about their own
> rights and the rights of others and carried the thinking through to its
> logical consequences.

?????????
What if I like "the Strong rule" and live by it? What logic could make 
me admit that there are "rights of others"? Please show us this logic.

			Mike Cherepov
P.S.  This chat is not at all related to any group but net.philosophy,
	unless you were more interested in Y. Samet's justification
	of his belief in Torah - a different issue entirely. Let's move.