X-Message-Number: 9245
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #9240 - #9243
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 00:07:16 -0800 (PST)

Hi Bob!

No. I seem to have a more restricted notion of "correct" and "incorrect" than
you do. 

It is not WRONG to have destructive values in the same sense as it is wrong
to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and the stars are little 
lanterns placed by the angels in the sky. Correct and incorrect apply to
logic, mathematics, and statements about how the world works. They do not 
apply to statements about how we should behave, or statements of what we
want.

If someone holds logically inconsistent values, then neither of these values 
is incorrect. Someone who discovers that may or may not choose between these
values; some people do not worry about inconsistency of VALUES. But I was 
saying that showing that inconsistency is the closest I can come to arguing
with someone about their values. Ultimately they have to choose which ones
to hold, if they value consistency. If not, I have no way at all to argue
with them. I may go my own way, or I may use force to make them act as ** I **
think they should, but logical arguments become impossible.

If someone holds logically inconsistent values, AND also values consistency,
then we can argue about his/her values. But even then, that someone will 
make a choice which cannot be either correct or incorrect.

Even to say that one value helps someone's survival while another harms
it does not bear on its CORRECTNESS. That someone must value survival in
the first place for such an argument to work.

I hope I have explained my ideas about values, now. Yes, they are not the
same as yours, clearly. But I do not see any INCONSISTENCY, and would
welcome any argument you might have pointing it out.

			Best and long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson

	:

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9245