 |
 |
I seriously thank you Dennis Greene for the time and effort you put into your Re Celbrity response of today In an ethical discusssion it ic difficlt to prescribe what a person should or ought to do, let alone make such presriptions for the behavior of othera. It is difficult to defend a position when refererence is made to the supernatural being in an ethical debate. (Read about Logical Positivisms refutation of any future Metaphysics). Illustrate with an incident. Last Sunday I had occasion to observe a young father permitting his car's engine to run while the car was idleing in the driveway. Why? To keep a sleeping child warm, rather than posssibly wakeing her while bringing her in the house when they arrived. It was his choice to further pollute the environment. It was my choice, being a tactul reflective person, to bite my tongue and remain silent. Ought...should...rights? Says who, who is to say? Dear friend, you advise me to take the long point of view. Just before his death, I heard BF Skinner lecture on exactly the point I am making. People often fail to see or react to their situations until the behavioral consequences impinge on them, often too late, permanent damage has been done. E.g., Ten years ago, could I, should I, would I go up to someone sitting near me in a restaurant, and say, "You should refrain from smoking?" Should, ought, would, could? ...Long term view for a PWP , 6 months, 5 years, who knows? Imagine being an astronamer. He may never see the results of his life'swork. His data may come back long after his demise? The past is history, the future a mystery. Meanwhile Let's keep making those calls to our Congresspersons. Thank you.