Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!unisoft!dual!ptsfa!qantel!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal
Message-ID: <565@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Sep-86 20:52:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.565
Posted: Tue Sep 23 20:52:53 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Sep-86 23:51:35 EDT
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 26

[janw]
>An elementary principle like "coercion is bad" is not the end  of
>wisdom  -  but a beginning of it. *If* it is true - then refusing to
>accept it (and I have never seen you accept it)  undermines the
>sophisticated  superstructures  you  build.  

I don't perceive an obligation to affirm, in my postings, what is
noncontroversial on the net.  I assume that everyone, or virtually
everyone, reading this believes that noncoercion is desirable, a
value; ceteris paribus, we prefer to minimize coercion.  But there
are other commonly held values as well, and it is when values
conflict that the interesting and fruitful questions arise.
Dogmatists, with their canned answers to all questions, need not
trouble themselves with these issues.  They can simply state, for
example, that everyone possesses an absolute and inviolable right to
dispose of his or her own body, without investigating what the
implications and potential consequences of this principle would be in
the real world, and whether there might be potential conflicts with
other important values/principles.  Philosophy is easy when you know
the answers a priori.  And from this great height, dogmatists can
look down on those depraved enough to disagree with them and impute
to them bad faith, bad character, base motives, or moral
insensitivity -- much easier than coming to grips with moral and
political questions that thoughtful persons regard as very tough.

Richard Carnes