From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: sgi
Lines: 51
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1r3570$hkv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1r2ls3$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #|> 
|> #|> #This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
|> #|> #is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
|> #|> #to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
|> #|> #we have to bear the moral consequences of that.
|> #|> 
|> #|> Since both statements, to all intents and purposes, say effectively
|> #|> the same thing, 
|> #
|> #Are you serious?  Two statements, one of which says that use of force
|> #in the given situation is moral, and the other of which says it is
|> #not moral "say effectively the same thing?"
|> 
|> Yes, when you tag on the "Unfortunately, ...", then to all intents and
|> purposes you are saying the same thing.

Then delete the "unfortunately".   Now tell me that the two statement
say effectively the same thing.

And to save everyone a couple of trips round this loop, please notice
that we are only obliged to use force to preserve self.   We can choose
*not* to preserve self, which is the point of pacifism.

|> 
|> #Would you say this of any two statements, one saying "X is moral" and
|> #the other saying "X is immoral?"   How would you decided when two 
|> #statements "X is moral" "X is immoral" actually conflict, and when
|> #they "say effectively the same thing".
|> 
|> What they prescribe that one should do is a pretty good indicator.

And in this case they don't prescribe the same things, so.....

|> 
|> #|>                  and lead one to do precisely the same thing, then 
|> #|> either both statements are doublespeak, or none.
|> #
|> #They might lead you to do the same thing, but the difference is what
|> #motivates pacifism so they obviously don't lead pacifists to to the
|> #same thing.
|> 
|> That's not true.  You could formulate a pragmatic belief in minimum 
|> force and still be a pacifist.  If the minimum is 0, great  - but one is
|> always trying to get as close to 0 force as possible under that belief.
|> Not the same as 'force is immoral, period', but still tending to pacifism.

If you don't think the use of force is immoral, why minimise its use?

jon.
