HI Marsha --
> Well, there is the obvious problem, the sadomasochist. Both the > Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative seem to make their > point-of-view permissible. How would you define being rational? You'll note that I said "generally it can be described in terms of the Golden Rule." You have mischievously come up with an exception to this rule, but I believe I could make a good case for the irrationality of sadomasochism. In fact, I can think of no deviant behavior, from child molestation to shop lifting and xenophobia, that could not be understood as irrational by the perpetrator. I'm not saying that he would admit it, nor am I denying that "genetic predisposition" or environmental influences may be a factor here, but it is inconceivable to me that a reasonably intelligent person could doubt the rationality of anti-social behavior. With the possible exception of psychotic individuals, the vast majority of humans in a free society innately recognize the value of life and respect the right of others to behave as they please, provided this behavior does not impose on their freedom. Indeed, our laws are written from this rational point of view. So that the social deviant need only be informed of these laws (which are often read to him after the initial offense) in order to be aware of his unreasonable behavior. Even if one cannot comprehend that what harms his fellows harms himself, there is little excuse for irrational conduct in a society founded on rational principles. --Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
