Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Smokescreens etc.
Message-ID: <402@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 20:00:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.402
Posted: Mon Jul 22 20:00:44 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jul-85 03:28:59 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 45


[The discussion began in this newsgroup and should be continued there.]

In article <397@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:

>>> > Because we happen to like those things.  Don't you?  Don't survival,
>>> > continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living?
>
>>> Thus, all the talk about objectivity, examination of presuppositions
>>> clung to in order to bolster a preconceived desired conclusion,
>>> wishful thinking, etc., etc. (many of you as well can no doubt mimic
>>> the usual phrases), is a complete smokescreen.
>
>>Why? This would be correct if Rich maintained that objectivity was the
>>sole arbitrator, in all cases. I got the impression that his view point
>>was basically that objective claims demand objective evidence. This
>>does not exclude subjective evidence from being useful in cases where
>>the claim is only presented as being subjective. 
>
>>I note with interest that the correctness of his statement, in itself,
>>has not been challanged.
>
>Perhaps so, but, by the same token, he is not in a position to demand
>objective evidence on the part of others, anyway.

You have not shown this to be the case.

>..  And besides, he IS making
>an objective statement: that the morality of "Non-interference" is an
>absolute moral imperative.  It's not that I necessarily agree with him
>(although, since I subscribe to a particular form of situational ethics, I
>do disagree); it's that, if you're going to base a moral absolute on Human
>Nature, you need some justification, some psychological theory that gets you
>from human nature to this principle.  Rich hasn't shown any.

The statement may be objective. In being asked to justify "non-interference"
the subjective element "that the individual benefits" is introduced.
Rich was explicitly responding to that, subjective, aspect.

The smokescreen charge does not hold.

The rest is a digression from the criticism directed at him, and is
discussed elsewhere.

Padraig Houlahan.