Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!minow
From: minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: seat belts and hidden premises
Message-ID: <150@decvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Dec-85 21:21:37 EST
Article-I.D.: decvax.150
Posted: Wed Dec 25 21:21:37 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Dec-85 01:05:35 EST
References: <4741@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin minow)
Organization: DEC - ULTRIX Engineering Group
Lines: 32


Andrew Koenig finds a flaw in seatbelt proponents' reasoning:

> Now let's apply this to the seat belt argument.  People are saying:
> 
> 	Seat belts save lives,
>		therefore
>	people should be required to use seat belts.
>
> The hidden premise here is:
>
>	Whenever an activity saves lives,
>	people should be required to perform it.
>
> Now, when the hidden premise is put this baldly, most people would
> disagree with it.  Thus, the argument is actually hiding something.

I would reply that

	If drivers and passengers wear seatbelts there will
	be fewer accidents and less personal injury in those
	accidents that do occur.

	This will save me money as a taxpayer and insurance
	purchaser.

	You may also avoid having an accident involving me.

The hidden premise, such as it is, is pure old American self-interest.

Martin Minow
decvax!minow