Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Logic, fact, preference, and social
Message-ID: <28200106@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 10:08:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200106
Posted: Tue Sep 24 10:08:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 08:18:53 EDT
References: <234@umich.UUCP>
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:umich:-23400:inmet:28200106:000:1364
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Sep 24 10:08:00 1985


Oops!  Spoke too soon.....

>/* Written  3:07 am  Sep 24, 1985 by nrh@inmet.UUCP in inmet:net.politics.t */
>>/* Written  3:49 pm  Sep 17, 1985 by torek@umich in inmet:net.politics.t */
>>/* ---------- "Logic, fact, preference, and social" ---------- */
>>....  Effects on others will be weighted, relative to effects
>>on myself, according as I have reasons for considering them similarly or
>>differently.  Some assignments of weights would be rationally indefensible;
>>for examples, giving no weight to others, or giving no weight to oneself.
>
>Bingo!  You've agreed with me.  So long as the assignments of weights are
>indefensible (and I doubt very much if you can find any that don't have
>some indefensible basis), there can be no "rational basis" for evaluating
>a social system -- any such basis itself depends on what weights you
>choose, which in turn (at least partially, according to your statement)
>depends upon irrational criteria.

Paul was clearly talking about "some systems of assigning weights", and
I was clearly off-base in taking that to mean "some assignments of weights",
especially as he gives examples.  My mistake.  Paul has not implicitly
agreed with me at this point.

He's still making irrational assumptions, though, most importantly that
the degree of caring about others may be turned into some rational assignment
of weights.