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