Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxt.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Libertarianism: Anarchism, Schools, Defense, Society Message-ID: <442@mhuxt.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Dec-84 14:47:16 EST Article-I.D.: mhuxt.442 Posted: Fri Dec 28 14:47:16 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Dec-84 23:00:20 EST References: <399@ptsfa.UUCP> <2207@randvax.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 50 >> Even if you could come up with some expression for "the good of society" > > in quantitative terms, it might not be right to maximize it. Suppose you > > have incontrovertible proof that sacrificing unwilling virgins to the great > > lizard-god is the only way to preserve the lives of others. Do you have a > >right to perform the sacrifice? Moral philosophies differ here, but I think > > not. > > J. Bashinsk>i< > This is a straw-man argument. As a libertarian, I suspect you believe > in a rational world in which an ungoverned order is inherently fair to > individuals. I doubt that the existance of a lizard-god fits into your > view of the world--or in the view of the people here you are arguing > with. Use more real-world examples if you want your argument to hold > water. Generally accepted examples of the good of the many overiding > the good of the few are incarceration of criminals, military defense > against an invader, and other cases in which ``the good of society'' > is considered. > Ed Hall Notice that both examples that Ed Hall gives of 'the good of the many over- riding the good of the few' are examples where 'the few' are NOT innocent, which is not what J. Bashinski was talking about (apparently). Well, if you must have a concrete, real life example, (BTW, why do some people, when considering what would be moral in a certain situation, demand an example which really happens? It seems to me that an individual should be able to decide what he thinks is a moral action in a given situation WITHOUT actually being in that situation.) how about graduated income tax. This is a real-life example where our current government has decided that the good of a few (those with large incomes) can be sacrificed in order to help many. Notice that 'the few' aren't really very happy with this arrangement. But, enough of our society thinks that this is o.k. to continue doing it. Where do you draw the line? We are willing to sacrifice the earnings of a few to the many. Historically, some societies have decided to sacrifice the possessions of a few to the many. Some have decided to sacrifice the lives of a few to the many (although it is unclear that this actually benefitted the many.) Someone, (I forget who) once wrote a very short story called "The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas". Omelas was a city whose people were happy and healthy and prosperous, but that prosperity was all somehow dependant on the forced poverty and degradation of ONE innocent person. The story merely states that once in awhile, in the middle of the night, a person would leave Omelas, never to return. Why is it that it is always 'the many' who decide that it's alright to sacrifice the good of 'the few' for 'the many'? It sounds as though 'the good of society' is usually used as an excuse to justify whatever 'the many' think they can get away with. Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j May I never benefit from the use of force on an innocent person.