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!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: a task for those opposed to abortion
Message-ID: <910@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 26-Jan-86 12:59:54 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.910
Posted: Sun Jan 26 12:59:54 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Jan-86 00:37:32 EST
References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP> <1730@druxu.UUCP> <30@valid.UUCP> <412@cisden.UUCP> <892@cybvax0.UUCP> <452@cisden.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: na
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 47
Summary: 

In article <452@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes:
> In article <892@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) quotes me:
> >> And yet the murder would still be wrong.
> >
> >> It's not the possibility of punishment that makes an action wrong.
> >
> >Is this fallacy "suggestion by repeated affirmation" or "suggestion by use
> >of a confident manner"?  I certainly see no other argument here.  
> 
> First, I didn't suggest anything -- I stated it.

Check out the definitions of suggestion in a dictionary.  I was referring
to two common fallacies of argument (see "How To Think Staight" by Thouless
or other books on informal fallacies of argument).

> Second, has anyone disputed the statement?  I said, essentially, "Murder is
> wrong even if there's no chance you'll get caught."  If anyone wants to
> dispute that, go ahead.  But nobody has, and it doesn't strike me as likely
> that anyone will.  I regarded the statements as non-controversial, an
> appeal to shared values to illustrate a point I was making.

Ah, the argument ad populum.  Well, perhaps I wasn't explicit enough
when I wrote (and you "cleverly" deleted):
> > ... the possibility of error argues strongly that "don't murder
> > even if you think you can get away with it" is still a good heuristic.

Simply, I don't believe in right or wrong as absolutes: you are reifying
cultural norms.  This is obvious, since different cultures have different
definitions of murder.  What is perhaps justified killing in one culture
(self-defense or adultery perhaps) may be murder in another (perhaps a
pacifistic sect such as the Mennonites.)

> We do share this value, don't we?  Or does anyone believe that murder is
> morally okay as long as there's no way it can be punished?

While we may individually share the value that murder is wrong, our
philosophical basis for it is entirely different.  Mine recognizes the
Machievellian facts of life: there are people who behave precisely as
if they believe murder is morally ok as long as they aren't punished.
Those people have nothing to gain by professing such beliefs.

> You don't see another argument because I didn't think anyone disagreed.

Pollyanna.
-- 

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