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