From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian Mon May 25 14:04:57 EDT 1992
Article 5604 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian
>From: brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder)
Subject: Re: AI failures
Message-ID: <1992May12.083743.22151@norton.com>
Organization: Symantec / Peter Norton
References: <TODD.92May10140613@ai09.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 08:37:43 GMT
Lines: 52

In comp.ai.philosophy article <TODD.92May10140613@ai09.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> you wrote:

> The notion of right or wrong is purely imposed on us
> at a societal level.  

Social subjectivism is thoroughly bankrupt as a foundation for 
morality.  First, it disconnects morality from reality, by removing 
any objective basis for moral principles.  It also removes any 
justification for abiding by moral principles.  what SHOULD anyone 
abide by moral rules if they are just an arbitrary whim of "society"?  
Second, it begs the question of what "society" SHOULD choose as it's 
moral code.  It sounds like you'd say it's wide open since it's not 
based on anything more fundamental (like facts).  Third, by severing 
morality from reality (ie. facts from values) you remove any kind of 
weapon a rational man could use to defend himself against thugs and 
tyrants.  Fourth, by defining morality as a social issue, you have 
neglected the entire area of what an individual ought to choose to do 
when not with others.  If he's marooned on an island, should he be 
lazy?  Should he take stupid risks?  Should he try to be rescued?  
Only morality can tell him the answers to these questions.

> In different places, at different times in history, all of the 
> above have been designated as permissible behavior.

And at various times in history "societies" have designated that "The 
Earth is flat." and "Ghosts roam the fproper method 
for "society" to determine how to reach a decision about whether kids 
can be killed.  Is that because there's no way to know?  Or because 
the answer doesn't matter?  Remember too that "society" cannot make 
choices, only individual people can...so how should individuals 
choose to address this question of whether killing kids is OK?  
Emotions?  Religious revelation?  Playing follow-the-leader with your 
neighbor?

> The determination is completely irrespective of facts or logic 
> (this is how people come to be pro-abortion vegetarians...)

This seems to be a restatement of Hume's (non-existent) is/ought 
dichotomy.  Is that the point you are trying to make here?  

As for pro-abortion vegetarians, they are simply inconsistent and 
wrong.  Why is it that you think that the only possible meaning of 
inconsistency is that reality isn't consistent?  Reason says that 
such inconsistencies indicate a false premise.

--Brian

-- 
-- Brian K. Yoder (brian@norton.com) - Maier's Law:                          --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group      - If the facts do not fit the theory,   --
-- Symantec Corporation              - they must be disposed of.             --
-- NeXT Mail Accepted (preferred!)   -                                       --


