Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!l5!laura
From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Reason gets no respect from Berman
Message-ID: <350@l5.uucp>
Date: Sat, 21-Dec-85 16:23:40 EST
Article-I.D.: l5.350
Posted: Sat Dec 21 16:23:40 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 05:49:29 EST
References: <1538@hound.UUCP> <1671@cbsck.UUCP> <334@l5.uucp> <709@spar.UUCP>
Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 23

>I can accept the idea that those who can reason have some implicit
>positive value.  I do not see how it follows from this that the
>use of violence against such beings is *necessarily* inconsistent
>with my valuing of reason, since there may be things to be gained
>by the use of violence that I value *more* than the reasoning ability
>of my victim.  Of course, depending on who I am, that might be anything
>from the safety of my children to my next fix.
>
>
>						Baba

I think that we are not using ``value'' in the same way.  You cannot value
reason and then abandon it when it becomes convenient to do so -- or rather
there is a sense of the word ``value'' that is consistent with this meaning,
but that was not the sense in which I was using the word.  I do not initiate
violence on people because I value them -- and anyone who would initiate
violence upon another and still claim that they valued them would have a lot
of explaining to do, beginning with this inconsistency.

-- 
Laura Creighton		
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa