Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ucat!pesnta!amd!intelca!qantel!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal
Message-ID: <575@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Oct-86 21:55:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.575
Posted: Sat Oct  4 21:55:29 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 09:31:28 EDT
References: <117400072@inmet>
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Distribution: world
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 52

[Jan Wasilewsky]
>P.S.  BTW,  Richard,  another  question  you  never  answered (you've
>developed preterition into a fine art) ...

This is rather silly.  Given the ten minutes or so per week I have
available to spend on the netnews, I have to be highly selective in
my responses.  We're not conducting formal debates here.  Let's bear
in mind

  THE FIRST LAW OF NETNEWS DEBATE:  It generally takes longer to refute
  fallacies and nonsense than it took to write them in the first place.

  THE SECOND LAW:  People who write drivel like to post net-articles
  because it gives their thoughts an importance they otherwise lack,
  while those who are capable of refuting the balderdash generally have
  more rewarding things to do with their time.

  COROLLARY:  A large proportion of the net's balderdash goes unrefuted.

What is the point, really, of writing long net-articles to correct
someone's errors and confusions, except perhaps to gratify one's ego
or to amuse oneself on a rainy day?  One can learn, certainly, from
participating in net discussions, but there are more efficient ways
of learning, particularly at a university.  One thing I have learned
from the net is that there are plenty of more-or-less educated people
out there who have little understanding of what philosophy is and no
notion of how to think carefully and rigorously about difficult
philosophical questions.  Perhaps there is nothing wrong with this
state of affairs but there is little point in trying to engage such
persons in genuinely philosophical discussion -- they don't
understand what you are saying.  I could try to teach them what I
understand about philosophy to the extent that I possess such
understanding but other people are paid to do this and I am not.

Given the choice, I usually prefer spending my time studying the
philosophy of (say) Aristotle or John Rawls, from whom I can learn a
great deal, to pointing out some netter's confusions and fallacies
concerning moral and political philosophy.  This seems a more
worthwhile endeavor than trying to confound the heretics and rout the
Philistines.

>... do *you* draw the
>line anywhere, and if so, where?  In other words, in  your  moral
>philosophy,  are *some* rights or principles inviolable, whatever the
>cost?  To use Dostoyevsky's example, would you sanction  torturing a
>child to establish an earthly paradise?

After you, Alphonse.  Let's see your answers to these questions,
together with your reasons for your answers.  The latter will
distinguish you from the dogmatists.

Richard Carnes