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 milano.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!caip!im4u!milano!wex
From: wex@milano.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Arguments against murder
Message-ID: <464@milano.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Jan-86 15:18:20 EST
Article-I.D.: milano.464
Posted: Thu Jan 16 15:18:20 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jan-86 03:28:35 EST
References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP> <1730@druxu.UUCP> <1101@oddjob.UUCP> <1110@oddjob.UUCP>
Sender: wex@milano.UUCP
Distribution: na
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Lines: 24

Adrian and I are approaching convergence.  A summary of Adrian's position (as
I see it):

	1)I have certain likes and disklikes and wish to maximize the former
	  and minimize the latter (utilitarianism or hedonism).
	2)I regard my values as good, in a moral sense.
	3)I believe that people, as a general rule, have characteristics that
	  I like, and that are beneficial to me.
	4)I believe that my values are held by other people, or I may impose
	  my values on them if they hold values that contradict 1 (global
	  utilitarianism).

It seems clear that 1+2+3 adds up to a moral imperative for Adrian not to kill
people.  But without 4, I do not see how this imperative can apply to others,
provided that they disagree with specifics of 1 or 3.

Is it reasonable to pursue the discussion on this basis?  I believe that I
can provide strong arguments against 4, and somewhat weaker arguments against
1, 2 and 3 (in specific cases).

--Alan Wexelblat
-- 
ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA
UUCP: ...ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex