Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: If you didn't like "aggreate" try "permissive". Message-ID: <324@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 12:24:22 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.324 Posted: Mon Dec 10 12:24:22 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 04:16:20 EST References: <177@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 40 > George Cook writing on comparative ethics in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, > has observed: > "As every stable society has a code which 'bids men do this and not do > that', it follows that you cannot have a 'permissive society.' The > two words 'permissive' and 'society' are contradictory. The Oxford > Dictionary defines 'permissive' as 'each individual free to do what > he likes.' 'Society' is defined as 'the customs and organization of > a civilised nation.' Obviously, we cannot have 'customs and > organization if each individual 'does what he likes.' > The above is from: THE POLITICS OF PORNOGRAPHY, by Rousas J. Rushdoony, > 1974,p115 This is a neat little book all by itself. See others by him. > Of course let's not go too far and let the meaning of words get in the way of > our slogans. Or our cherished beliefs. [who else? ARNDT] Gee. Imagine that. Two opposing interests. "Permissiveness" (each individual free to do what he likes) and society (which 'bids men do this and not do that'). Gosh, Ken, how do we resolve this dilemma? Do you have a quote from someone else who might provide an answer? :-( If you value human individual dignity, realizing that society is not as important as its individuals (Arndt apparently doesn't have any quotes to refute this point...), then one seeks a society in which everyone is as free as possible to do what one likes. "As free as possible"? What would be the limitations on freedom? The goal would be precisely the following limitation: freedom to do anything that does not harm or injure other human beings. The compromise between goals of freedom (what Ken calls "permissiveness") and society (the aggregation of individuals to work together for common interest). Of course, if you don't value human individual dignity, then none of this holds. Is this why Ken (and others like him) are more interested in rules for controlling the people in a society than with the welfare and needs of those people? And, remember, Arndt doesn't think, he just quotes. He needs other people's brains to think for him. If they've been published, obviously there are no flaws in their thinking, thus all one has to do is quote to make a point. Right? -- "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr