On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
> Is this a respect for law in the abstract/theorectical realm, or a respect
> for law based on an empirical examination of the consequences of its
> implementation?
Again, you're ignoring the empirical fact (!) that the same consequences can be considered positive or negative, depending on the moral values of the person making the assessment. Why should your assessment be the one that everyone else will magically agree with? You talk a lot about empiricism, but you refuse to deal with the empirical reality here: not everybody agrees with your "less-suffering-is-ideal" moral position. Instead of appreciating this empirical fact, you resort to the abstract theoretical claim that your moral standards are (or should be) universal.
--To pull a little mental jujitsu here, you're the one engaged in abstract theorizing here; I'm trying to be practical!
Miles