Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!ittvax!wex
From: wex@ittvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: limited laws and government
Message-ID: <798@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Jun-83 11:44:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: ittvax.798
Posted: Mon Jun 20 11:44:37 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Jun-83 00:06:27 EDT
Lines: 21


Mr. Craver makes some interesting points in his attempt to provide the basis
for a limited set of laws.  As a philosphy major, however, I think I have 
spotted a fairly serious flaw, to wit:

He states that the foundation of morality is "suuport of one's own life."
We assume that any morals that are to be enforceable by a government must
be universal.  Therefore, all persons should be moral.

BUT, by the Craver system, if I have absolutely no regard for my own life,
then I am completely outside the strictures of morality, and his government
has no hold over me.  Additionally, the argument can be made that his
government has sway over my actions only to the extent that I am concerned
for my own life.  Does that mean that he cannot govern Vikings, whose concern
for personal death was minimal to non-existant?

This seems a very weak foundation on which to base any arguments.
--Alan
ittvax!wex
or
decvax!ucbvax!ittvax!wex@BERKELEY