home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!sgigate!sgi!fido!zola!eno!cj
- From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
- Subject: Re: Quote from ME
- Message-ID: <sj39g68@zola.esd.sgi.com>
- Sender: news@zola.esd.sgi.com (Net News)
- Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
- Organization: SGI TechPubs
- References: <23971@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> <1992Nov12.162153.1591@panix.com> <satdn4g@zola.esd.sgi.com> <1992Nov14.151657.8820@panix.com> <sen9tso@zola.esd.sgi.com> <Bxvwop.M1x@access.digex.com> <shl2l14@zola.esd.sgi.com> <1992Nov19.155934.15998@panix.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 02:56:32 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
-
- In article <1992Nov19.155934.15998@panix.com>, jk@panix.com writes:
- |cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio) writes:
-
- |>I would say, in fact, that the state shouldn't ever use "moral
- |>rights" as justication for laws. The state has no business
- |>making any statements about "morality".)
- |What do you mean by this? It seems to me that judgements of good and
- |bad are a necessary part of all action. For example, if the state
- |does something to promote economic growth it does it because it thinks
- |economic growth is good. How can the state act at all without taking
- |positions on what things are good and what things are bad?
-
- Why do you equate "good/bad" with "moral/immoral"? I see no
- connection (other than that "moral" can sometimes be a subset of
- "good").
-
- To give an example of laws utterly unconnected with any concept
- of "morality": the state might decide that traffic laws are
- "good" because they promote order & reduce accident rates,
- without making any "moral" judgments about driving through
- intersections without stopping. This is one of Adrienne
- Regard's favorite examples, I think.
-
- ---
- cj@eno.esd.sgi.com C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
- "A moment's thought would have shown him, but a moment is a long
- time and thought is a painful process." -- A E Housman
-