Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!parcvax!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor)
Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc
Subject: Re: The Ethics of Work...
Message-ID: <562@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Aug-86 11:59:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.562
Posted: Sat Aug 16 11:59:13 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Aug-86 23:40:43 EDT
Reply-To: hplabs!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw%mcnc.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Lines: 22
Approved: taylor@hplabs
Reference: <524@hplabsc.UUCP>


This article is from rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@mcnc.CSNET (Wayne Throop)
 and was received on Sat Aug 16 01:11:03 1986
 
> ki4pv!tanner writes;

> One way to assure peace is to have reasonably unanimous rejection of
> the alternative.  (cribbed)--> What if they gave a war, and no one
> came?
> [an interesting point... --Dave]

I'd like to point out that the above seems to be an obverse of the "If I
didn't do it, then somebody else would" rationalization.  In that case,
the argument is that "there will be war anyhow, so I'll participate".
In this case, the argument is that "it would be better if there were no
war, so I won't participate".  Neither seem valid to me.

 -
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked
at it the right way, did not become still more complicated.
                                --- Poul Anderson
 -
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw