From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Jul 09 2005 - 19:01:54 BST
msh before:
Although the Constitution and its amendments (sometimes referred to
as the Bill of Rights ) does not specifically state that we have
the right not to die just because we cannot afford a pacemaker or
dialysis, it's pretty easy to argue that anyone who dies under such
conditions is being deprived of life without the due process of law,
as required by the Fifth Amendment.
platt 7-6-05:
If it's an easy argument, why don't you try to make it.
msh 7-6-05:
I didn't formalize it because it is obvious, or should be. When
someone dies as a result of being refused life-saving treatment,
they are being deprived of life. If the government allows this to
happen without showing legal cause, then the government has
deprived someone of life without the due process of law.
platt 7-7-05:
If your argument had value, the Supreme Court would have required the
federal government to provide a national health service,
msh 7-7-05:
This is an appeal to authority, not an analysis of my argument.
platt 7-8-05:
I appealed to authority in this case for the obvious reason that the
Supreme Court is the authority on questions of due process in the
U.S.
msh 7-8-05:
It doesn't matter WHY one appeals to authority; the point is that,
rather than analyzing the argument yourself, you're asking someone
else to do your thinking for you. It's as if I asked you why it's
wrong to commit adultery and you said, "Because the Bible tells me
so."
msh before:
Besides, you're saying that any argument not endorsed by the Supreme
Court is without value. Does this mean you are convinced that the
recent decision in Kelso v New London was the right decision? That
the argument on behalf of Kelso was valueless? How about Roe v Wade?
platt 7-8-05:
No, I'm not saying ANY argument not endorsed by the Supreme Court is
without value. You're following in Arlo's footsteps of non sequiturs.
msh 7-8-05:
Yes, that was sloppy on my part. Let me rephrase: you're saying
that any argument rejected by the Supreme Court is without value.
That is, your statement quite clearly indicates that, for you, the
Supreme Court's rejection of an argument is a sufficient condition
for concluding that the argument is valueless. So let me ask my
question again: Does this mean you are convinced that the recent
decision in Kelso v New London was the right decision? That the
argument on behalf of Kelso was valueless? How about Roe v Wade?
> platt 7-7-05:
> No. It's answering you assertions by denying the relevancy (not to
> mention the reliability) of your statistical measurements.
>
> msh 7-7-05:
> I've made no assertions. I've asked for a substantive answer to a
> few easily understandable hypothetical questions exploring the
> acceptable limits of ownership. A refusal to answer is evidence of
> an unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion.
platt 7-8-05:
Apparently your idea of a meaningful discussion is to begin with a
strawman fallacy and follow up with the slippery slope fallacy. In
this case, an undefined moral society is the strawman and in
infinitude of percentages is the slippery slope.
msh 7-8-05:
I doubt that this is "apparent" to anyone but you.
It should be clear from what I've said before that my working
definition of a moral society is one that adheres to the MOQ's moral
hierarchy. My argument here is that unlimited acquisition of
personal wealth leads to great disparities in wealth, privilege, and
power that lead to the destabilization and eventual destruction of a
society; therefore, the unlimited acquisition of personal wealth is
immoral. So, there is no "straw man", even using your misconstrued
idea of same.
The percentage questions are a way of getting people to think about
whether or not they agree that a moral society requires a limitation
on the amount of wealth and power an individual may accumulate. As
you refuse to consider these questions, let me eliminate your mis-
perceived "slippery slope:" Do you believe a society is morally
obligated to limit an individual's accumulation of personal wealth?
> msh 7-7-05:
> I've made no judgement of "moral equivalence," as I don't even know
> the meaning of the term.
msh 7-8-05:
Let's paste back my full comment, shall we?
msh 7-7-05:
I've made no judgement of "moral equivalence," as I don't even know
the meaning of the term. What I'm saying is that the people fighting
against the American occupation of Iraq believe that their actions
are morally justified, just as did American colonists in our own
Revolutionary War. We can discuss whether or not these beliefs are
warranted in either case, but your talk of some vaporous "moral
equivalence" does nothing but allow you to avoid honest discussion.
Which is really the point, is it not?
platt 7-8-05:
The term means that there's no moral difference between an Arab
terrorist fighting to establish a brutal theocracy and a British
soldier fighting to establish a democracy.
msh 7-8-05:
You're assuming that the insurrectionists in Iraq are fighting to
establish a brutal theocracy. In other words, in setting up your
"moral equivalency" equation, you assume morally bad intentions on
one side of the equal sign, and morally good intentions on the other,
then point to your equation and scoff "How can anybody believe THAT?"
This is why the "moral equivalency" argument is really no argument
at all. It is used as a way of derailing honest philosophical
inquiry, just as it's being used in this case, by you.
On to your book recommendation. I said...
> As for your book recommendation, thanks. The fact that the author,
> Jim Powell, is a distinguished fellow at the Cato Institute (which
> has been leading the charge against Social Security, one of the
many
> enduring legacies of FDR's New Deal) leads me to suspect motives
> ulterior in the bashing of a President elected to office four
times.
> Nevertheless...
platt 7-8-05:
Intentions? Ulterior motives? I thought you were dead set against
imputing such to anybody. I happen to agree with you. Until we can
read minds, we cannot know someone's motives or intentions. We can
only infer them from what they say and do, a very muddy business.
msh 7-8-05:
All I said, in other words, is that his actions allow me to make a
reasonable inference about his motives.
platt 7-8-05:
Anyway, do you know anybody who isn't biased?
msh 7-8-05:
No. But I know lots of people for whom many biases have been
weakened if not dispelled through honest philosophical inquiry.
platt 7-8-05:
Are you suggesting the New Deal programs are vital to assure a moral
society? Are they in your blueprint? If so, which ones and why? I'm
still waiting for your specifics.
msh 7-8-05:
The New Deal was an attempt to undo damage caused by 150 years of
unrestricted "free enterprise." In a moral society, such programs
would be unnecessary.
As for this blueprint you keep demanding, it seems that you are
asking for a static encapsulation of a plan that we can plop down in
front of a crew of social engineers and say "Here, build this." This
is not realistic. The people of our society, freed of the physical
and psychological impediments to becoming fully-realized human
beings, will quite rightly and naturally contribute to the moral
evolution of our world.
Though I can offer no fixed blueprint, I and everyone else can put
forth basic principles which, if allowed to flourish, may well
result in the elimination of the impediments mentioned above. Many
such principles are already contained in the Constitutions of a
number of existing societies, including our own. But principles on
paper don't guarantee principles in action. The principles of
democracy and equality cannot flourish in a society where there are
great disparities in power and privilege, where wealth is able to
influence policy in any way.
So, if we are sincere in our belief in the principles of democracy,
we must also be sincere in our efforts to eliminate the obstacles to
democracy. This means we must work toward an environment where
everyone has an equal chance to survive and be nourished both
physically and intellectually; and we must eliminate the influence of
wealth on social policy.
I'm anxious to hear what others think.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless… …We must crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to bid defiance to the laws of our country.” President Abraham Lincoln wrote: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country…corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote: “The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That is, in essence, fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling power. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.” MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 09 2005 - 19:02:51 BST