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.