From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 14:30:38 MST
Brett had written (Friday, Jan 10, 12:54 AM)
> > > [A] "I believe (sic) that life (sic) begins at
> > > conception. I believe that any other points we
> > > might choose are essentially arbitrary and uncertain.
> > > And I believe that this is a view founded not in
> > > religion, not in faith, but on the logic of the matter. ....
> >
> > But wouldn't it have meant exactly the same thing if he
> > had said, [B] "My working hypothesis is that human existence
> > begins at conception, and I contend that this is a view
> > founded not in religion, not in faith, but on logic."
>
> I don't think so at all.
>
> The proposition I am putting to you Lee is that there is a larger
> issue here than the mere ontological point. If we call the guy who
> made the original unmodified statement Tony-A and the one who
> made the modified statement Tony-B would you really have no
> preference over whether Tony-A or Tony-B was casting a vote
> on stem cell policy that was likely to directly effect the rate at
> which treatments for a variety of diseases might be found and
> ultimately cures might be found?.
Perhaps I would prefer to vote for [B] because his choice
of words does, as has been pointed out, make it sound like
he's less committed. Also, there is a chance that you are
right about this individual, and what he means by "I believe"
is not "I think", but "I BELIEVE".
But I might vote for [A] instead because the ideological
positions displayed are *exactly* the same, and [A] is more
up-front about it.
It's just a little too bizarre that my approval would
simply be a function of the particular words chosen.
(There is a notable exception to this: ideological
positions can be and often are intentionally betrayed
by word choice, i.e., I would vote against someone
who employed a lot of Marxist jargon but who was
saying exactly the same thing as someone who said
"Western manufacturing managers should become less
addicted to assembly-line solutions.")
> > > They start from a position of faith or belief assume
> > > that as an axiom and reason from there.
> >
> > But I .....start from the axiom "suffering is bad" (that's me!)
>
> I don't think the infant Lee Corbin came into the world
> loaded with many "axioms" at all. I also think that by the
> time you learnt what the word axiom meant your thinking
> would have developed way past the point where you
> would have thought suffering is bad in every case. I don't
> think there is an *actual* as opposed to a theoretical or
> philosophical state in which you do, or ever did, "*start*
> from the axiom 'suffering is bad'".
Your remarks about the infant Lee Corbin are pretty
unnecessary. OF COURSE one does not *start* in the
way you describe. Not even in geometry!! You could
try to read what is written a little more charitably? ;-)
> > Now yes, in general, I'm with you and I *do* have a
> > problem with axiomatic schemes.
>
> In what respect are you *with me*? What do you take to be
> my main contention in this thread (that you are with me on)?
Well, I think that you were criticizing those who
"start" from a position of faith or belief in
justifying their conclusions, as you wrote above.
But by your use of the word "axiom" I also inferred,
perhaps incorrectly, that you also had a problem, like
I do, with those who would try to rigorously deduce
from some small set of principles everything they
believe---sorry---everything that they endorse. It's
not your "main contention", of course.
My confession of "suffering is bad" as being sort of
axiomatic is only that this is a meme up against which
my thoughts frequently bump. It's sort of a "hard
principle". But I've always had better sense than
to begin a Euclidean program on it!
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST