Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Emperor's New Clothes
Message-ID: <646@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 00:18:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.646
Posted: Thu Aug  1 00:18:38 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 20:38:43 EDT
References: <1311@uwmacc.UUCP> <397@utastro.UUCP> <941@umcp-cs.UUCP> <632@cybvax0.UUCP> <1314@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 19

In article <1314@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
> >>... if you're going to base a moral absolute on Human
> >>Nature, you need some justification, some psychological theory that gets you
> >>from human nature to this principle.  Rich hasn't shown any. [WINGATE]
> 
> > Exactly my opinion. [HUYBENSZ]
> 
> Who says you have to get from ANYWHERE to this principle, let alone
> specifically from "human nature"?  So-called human nature has nothing to do
> with the principle involved.  Whom do you have to justify this principle to?

I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that you were more or less
a scientific materialist, Rich.  You seem here to be retreating to a
"because I say so" justification.  Wouldn't you like to show us that
your opinion (which you no doubt value) is based on something more than
wishful thinking?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh