Opinion and law (was Re: fetuses, caterpillars, etc.)
Ray Trent
>The very fact that *ALL THIS IS YOUR OR MINE OR WHOMEVER'S OPINION* IS
>THE VERY REASON WE **SHOULD NOT PASS LAWS** ABOUT IT.
How does it follow from "X is a matter of opinion" that "we should not
pass laws about X"? Hint: it doesn't.
--Paul V. "Who's side am I on, anyway?" Torek
DISCLAIMER: These views are not necessarily Ray's.
ma...@andromeda.uucp
> In article <5...@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> ma...@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU (the wharf rat) writes:
> >The very fact that *ALL THIS IS YOUR OR MINE OR WHOMEVER'S OPINION* IS
> >THE VERY REASON WE **SHOULD NOT PASS LAWS** ABOUT IT.
>
> How does it follow from "X is a matter of opinion" that "we should not
> pass laws about X"? Hint: it doesn't.
Since laws function to restrict the actions of others, they should
be based on logic, not religon, intuition, opinion, or any other garbage.
An opinion is an "stronger than impression, but less strong than positive
knowledge". Laws should be limited to the reality of positive knowledge,
not based on someone's half-assed guess about truth. Since no opinion is
more true than another, there can be no basis for passing laws based on
opinions. Just think of all the opinions you'd hate to see made law. The
above is why they should never be. Your reasoning is the reason so many of
them are.
Down with half-baked opinions masquerading as truth!,
the wharf rat
In *my* opinion, it's *not* killing a baby.
Ray Trent
In article <5...@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> ma...@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU () writes:
>In article <8...@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, (I, Paul Torek) wrote:
>> How does it follow from "X is a matter of opinion" that "we should not
>> pass laws about X"? Hint: it doesn't.
>
> Since laws function to restrict the actions of others, they should
>be based on logic, not religon, intuition, opinion, or any other garbage.
>[..]. Laws should be limited to the reality of positive knowledge,
>not based on someone's half-assed guess about truth. Since no opinion is
>more true than another, there can be no basis for passing laws based on
>opinions. Just think of all the opinions you'd hate to see made law. The
>above is why they should never be. Your reasoning is the reason so many of
>them are.
If it is a matter of opinion that (the moral equivalent of an adult) human
life begins at time t, then it is equally a matter of opinion that it
doesn't. So if we can't make laws based on opinion, what, pray tell, are
we supposed to vote for? "Easy," I hear the audience thinking, "just vote
for the side that wants to leave the law out of the issue." Sorry, not
possible, at least not without a drastic change in our legal structure.
Question: suppose pro-lifers want to picket an abortion clinic forcibly
preventing anyone from entering. Or suppose they want to destroy the
clinic's equipment. (Not-so-hypothetical questions, eh?) Do you want
our legal system to stop them? Aha ... If so, you are giving your
opinion the force of law!
And I haven't even gotten into the problems about beginning at t
versus beginning at t+epsilon, and how opinion grades off into knowledge
(or does it?).
P.S. Does anybody pay attention to the "References:" line in headers?
If not, I'm going to get rid of mine.
Paul Torek, not necessarily reflecting the views of:
r...@tybalt.caltech.edu
the wharf rat
>
> In article <5...@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> ma...@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU () writes:
> >In article <8...@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, (I, Paul Torek) wrote:
> >> How does it follow from "X is a matter of opinion" that "we should not
> >> pass laws about X"? Hint: it doesn't.
> >
> > Since laws function to restrict the actions of others, they should
> >be based on logic, not religon, intuition, opinion, or any other garbage.
> >[..]. Laws should be limited to the reality of positive knowledge,
>>
> preventing anyone from entering. Or suppose they want to destroy the
> clinic's equipment. (Not-so-hypothetical questions, eh?) Do you want
> our legal system to stop them? Aha ... If so, you are giving your
> opinion the force of law!
>
It is not an opinion that it is wrong to restrain another's
freedom of movement unlawfully. It is not an opinion that it is wrong
to destroy another's possessions. It is not an opinion that it is wrong
to plant bombs in buildings. These are logically wrong, since to allow
these actions is to allow society to degenerate into anarchy. Whether
or not it is socially acceptable to terminate the existence of a
collection of partially differentiated cells that may someday become a baby
is a matter of opinion because there is no conclusive evidence that
proves a particular point of view. Whether or not it is socially
acceptable to bomb abortion clinics is not a matter of opinion, since
there is conclusive evidence that allowing indiscriminate and random
violence will lead to the breakdown of society. As proof, I point
out the situation in Lebanon.
It is my opinion that the anti-choice arguments being presented
here have recently become particularly facetious, trivial, and just
plain silly. This is an opinion because I have no hard proof that
this kind of stupidity is meant facetiously, or that these people are indeed
idiots. It's just my opinion.
wharf rat
"Ship of fools, sail away from me..."
r...@tybalt.caltech.edu.uucp
>> Question: suppose pro-lifers want to picket an abortion clinic forcibly
>> our legal system to stop them? Aha ... If so, you are giving your
>> opinion the force of law!
>
> It is not an opinion that it is wrong to restrain another's
So some moral issues aren't matters of opinion, eh? (E.g., anarchy.)
OK, well that makes it a little harder to argue against you -- but only
a little.
Restrain another's freedom of movement *unlawfully*? When arguing about
what the law *should be*, you can't use what the law *is* as an argument
(unless you have some fetish about the status quo). You have yet to
answer my question: why should I vote for a law that makes it unlawful
to interfere with people's freedom to move in and out of abortion clinics?
In other words, why should I vote to LEGISLATE the OPINION that fetuses
aren't "human"? Remember, your answer must be consistent with your view
that it is wrong to legislate opinions.
Your general argument -- "if we allowed that sort of thing, society would
fall apart" -- doesn't work because we aren't talking about allowing
any SORT of thing, only about allowing ONE thing: allowing "pro-lifers"
to act according to THEIR opinions. The alternative is to legislate
that they should act according to YOUR opinion. (Which isn't such a
bad idea in my view, but I'm playing devil's advocate.)
The only thing "just plain silly" about this discussion is your
argument about the wrongness of legislating "opinions".
the wharf rat
> to interfere with people's freedom to move in and out of abortion clinics?
You're right. I have absolutely no answer to a man who believes
that it is acceptable to use violence to control other people's actions
because of his own unsubstantiated personal beliefs. I can only say
that dis-allowing this sort of might-makes-right violence in society is
not a moral decision, but in fact based on logic. This is true because
were it to be allowed, our society would degnerate into a series of armed
camps, ala' Lebanon. Terrorism of any kind by any person is wrong, not on
some vague moral grounds, but because society must be based on peaceful
co-operation. By refusing to legislate that it is acceptable to bomb
abortion clinics, you are not legislating the opinion that fetuses are not
human beings; you are legislating my right to control my own life
without fear of violence from those who do not agree with my actions.
A ridiculous question : If anti-abortion violence is acceptable
because it merely expresses your opinion, is anti-anti-abortion violence
also acceptable ? Will the abortion question be solved by which side
has the best marksmen ?
"I cannot share your answers, ship of fools",
(the real) rat
ps- I'm going to be long in responding to followups/e-mail,
because we're doing major work in the machine room, and then
I'm going to a different job.
Ray Trent
>[assorted stuff]
Have you ever heard of a "reductio ad absurdum" argument? It works like
this: Someone says something I disagree with. I take their premise
and use it to derive an absurd conclusion. I then conclude that because
the conclusion is absurd, the premise must be false. Usually my opponent
is smart enough to figure out that I reject the conclusion, without my
having to say so explicitly.
Apparently, this time is different. So let me make crystal clear: I
think it would be crazy not to prohibit anti-abortionists from doing the
things I mentioned. We should impose our moral views on them. We
should legislate our "opinion" about the legitimacy of such actions.
>[...] I can only say
>that dis-allowing this sort of might-makes-right violence in society is
>not a moral decision, but in fact based on logic. [...]
Why not both?
> By refusing to legislate that it is acceptable to bomb
>abortion clinics, you are not legislating the opinion that fetuses are not
>human beings;
The issue was destroying property, not bombing, but: Sure I am!
> you are legislating my right to control my own life
>without fear of violence from those who do not agree with my actions.
That too. It's not either/or.
> A ridiculous question : If anti-abortion violence is acceptable
>because it merely expresses your opinion, is anti-anti-abortion violence
>also acceptable ? Will the abortion question be solved by which side
>has the best marksmen ?
It would be. And that's the reductio ad absurdum of your premise.