Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.philosophy
Subject: Truth: Lucy was right
Message-ID: <8142@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 03:47:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.8142
Posted: Wed Aug 22 03:47:37 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Aug-84 03:19:26 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 36

From Scott D. Anderson (decvax!ittvax!anderson):
>>	Ah, but by definition, "rights" are arbitrary, so they cannot be
>>	judged right or wrong.
Not by my definiton!  Statements about (moral) rights can be true or false.
The existence of (legal) rights can be right or wrong.

>>	(Laura) should realize that laws are based on a cost/benefit
>>	analysis, not on abstract notions of right and wrong.
No, they are based on BOTH types of considerations.  Often one of these
types predominates; this can be either type.

>>	Whether or not a fetus is human is not a matter of fact.  It is a
>>	matter of definition.
No, it is BOTH.  Again, you commit the either/or fallacy (not a fallacy in
the strict sense, but in the colloquial sense).  What humanity is is a
matter of definition.  What fits the criteria is a matter of fact.  But I
digress.

>>	Yes, but who will tell us what is right?  
I WILL!  This reminds me of a Peanuts cartoon.  Lucy asks Charlie Brown
whether she's a good person.  Charlie Brown responds with a wishy-washy "who
can say what is good and what is bad?"  And Lucy replies, "I will!"  Lucy
had the right attitude.  Touche!

From Brian Peterson  {ucbvax, ihnp4, }  !tektronix!shark!brianp
>>	     Please post an algorithm for determining "truth", given any 
>>	proposition or topic.  There may be an "absolute truth", but we 
>>	never see it.
Look, as much as you don't like this fact, truth is not definable in terms
of what can be found by a certain algorithm.  (Didn't Godel prove this for
mathematical truth?)  This does not invalidate the concept of truth one whit
-- it merely (partly) explains it.  So give up, Brian.  You haven't got a
case.
				Another slap in the face from
				--The aspiring iconoclast,
				Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink