scholar
|
|
Stern Philosophical Debunking #1
| 
Oct 12 03:39 UTC 2005 |
A while back, gelinas argued that, since everyone would agree to the statement
"Not all text ought to be retained in perpetuity", Grex ought to item authors
to delete their entire items, including responses entered by other users.
I didn't do it at the time, but I feel this argument is one deserving of a
STERN PHILOSPHICAL DEBUNKING.
Here's what I have to say:
gelinas's argument is about as intelligent as the argument made by the police
officer who says "Well, I don't see why all property ought to remain in the
possession of its current owner" when you call him to complain about your
neighbour stealing your daughter's panties off the clothesline. In both
cases, the argument relies on creating a maxim that is broader than the
specific situation and which everyone can agree with, and then pretending that
that means any specific situation that fits that maxim is moral. The way in
which these maxims are phrased should be paid close attention to: They don't
say any situation x that fulfills any maxim y is moral; instead, they say any
situation y that fulfills any malcom x MAY be moral, which isn't really saying
anything at all, since it's possible that an equally valid maxim may exist
saying any situation y that fulfills any maxim y is IMMORAL. Indeed, it is
hard to imagine ANY maxim z that specifies an immoral act not being bound by
some maxim Z that is true for all the same situations as maxim z yet says all
situations that fulfill maxim z MAY be moral. Since gelinas's reasoning
apparently applies to ANY maxim that specifies an immoral act, and we know
that SOME maxims that specify immoral acts are correct, we know that gelinas's
reasoning must be WRONG.
qed.
|