Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site epsilon.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!egs From: egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Morality and Democracy Message-ID: <26@epsilon.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 08:07:58 EST Article-I.D.: epsilon.26 Posted: Fri Dec 21 08:07:58 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 01:11:04 EST References: <4424@cbscc.UUCP>, <236@looking.UUCP> Organization: BELLCORE, Murray Hill, NJ Lines: 25 Brad: <- my bug killer Please forgive me, but I'm terribly confused. First, you say: > > >How do we define objective morality? It's tough, but I think we must > > >start from a passive state - which is to say we allow things that don't > > >infringe on the desires of others, and only disallow things when there > > >is a very clear large (like >90%) majority that want it. To which Paul Dubuc replied: > >Then by your standards it WAS wrong to ban slavery in the U.S. I doubt > >that 90% were opposed to it then; there was probably only a small minority > >who really wanted it banned. To which you then replied: >Slavery is a tough case, Paul writes, because back in the 19th century >he thinks >90% of the population wanted it. That's not what he said at all! I mean, even I can see this (he said self-deprecatingly :-). Did you even read his article? Ed Sheppard Bell Communications Research