Phil: I don't understand the significance of your saying "this is not even close to what I wrote." I was interested in "application" not "duplication." What I wrote was my understanding of what you wrote applied to the matter of "Moral Equivalence." But since this is a dialogue, perhaps a further clarification will help. That is, since I shall no doubt continue to misunderstand your statements perhaps you can provide further clarification. In regard to my present confusion, you say you don't know what a 'logical assumption' is. I'll take that at face value although I find it surprising. It is necessary to have at least two assumptions in any argument - two assumptions and a conclusion, we could also describe this as a major and minor premise and a conclusion. They assumptions or premises don't necessarily have to be stated they can be realized by the reader if the writer is clear enough. Since no believers in "Moral Equivalence" have thus far produced a logical argument I produced one for them. Thus, to go all the way back and suggest that I am errant for not reproducing your earlier statement is puzzling. Do you back away now from the necessity of being logical? All communication depends on logic. You cannot have an argument without logic. You say "people enter these conversations with differing assumptions, and that differences can't be settled through logic." Do you recall my speaking favorably about the consistent pacifist a note or two ago. She advocated pacifism and she followed it through logically to the conclusion that she wouldn't kill even if her life depended on it - even if the lives of her family depended upon it - even if the survival of her nation depended upon it. I complimented her at the time and compliment her now. She was a consistent pacifist and understood the logical ramifications of her pacifistic assumptions. At that point we didn't argue. Her argument was logically consistent and she presented it in such a way that I understood it. She understood that I held different premises and came to conclusions based upon them; so we understood each other, and once we did that there was nothing left to dispute. You write, "I suspect Lawrence is using the word 'logic' in a much broader and looser manner than I am . . . ." I've no idea what you mean by this. An argument is either logical or illogical. There is no third choice. You write, "the point I wanted to make was that certain assumptions rule out the possibility of making moral judgments. If I assume that one's upbringing causes a person to act in a particular manner, I cannot hold that person morally responsible for acting in that manner. To be morally responsible for one's actions necessarily entails that one can act otherwise. If one's upbringing causes one to act in particular ways, then one cannot have acted otherwise. Therefore, there is no possibility of making moral judgments. To be clear, it isn't that one is not clever enough to articulate a moral judgment, but rather that there are no grounds for such a judgment." Okay, if I understand what you have written here you are disagreeing with those who use the Moral Equivalence argument. But let's be specific. Several people using the Moral Equivalence argument chastised Eric for wanting to kill Terrorists who are trying to kill us. They condemned him morally. They said that if he kills terrorists, his guilt is equal to the guilt of the terrorists. Are your statements aimed at those who use the Moral Equivalence argument? Are you telling them that Eric isn't morally wrong because Eric was raised to believe it morally right to defend oneself and one's nation? Are you telling them that they can't condemn Eric morally because he is operating under a different set of assumptions -- and given his assumptions he is thoroughly moral? Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: Phil Enns Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:40 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An Online History (The Fourth Rail) Lawrence Helm wrote: "I've been thinking about Phil's theory that those who advance the Moral Equivalence argument have logical assumptions for it and are only inhibited from presenting them by not being clever enough writers." This is not even close to what I wrote. I don't know what a 'logical assumption' is, but I suggested that people enter these conversations with differing assumptions, and that the differences can't be settled through logic. (I suspect Lawrence is using the word 'logic' in a much broader and looser manner than I am, but I don't want to get into that.) I also pointed out that the problem has nothing to do with being clever, or being a clever writer. Some of the people I disagree with on this list are terribly good writers and I am in awe at their use of language. The point I wanted to make was that certain assumptions rule out the possibility of making moral judgments. If I assume that one's upbringing causes a person to act in a particular manner, I cannot hold that person morally responsible for acting in that manner. To be morally responsible for one's actions necessarily entails that one can act otherwise. If one's upbringing causes one to act in particular ways, then one cannot have acted otherwise. Therefore, there is no possibility of making moral judgments. To be clear, it isn't that one is not clever enough to articulate a moral judgment, but rather that there are no grounds for such a judgment. Sincerely, Phil Enns Glen Haven, NS