OCR Text |
Show Bangs Explodes Holocaustic Reply Editor: I am more than a little puzzled by Richard J. Merrill. Mer-rill. He presumably is literate, since he signs his name at the bottom of his letters to the editor. Nevertheless, he appears to be unable to read. The point of Prof. T. M. Reed's successive replies to him, which is sufficiently suffic-iently clear to me and to those I have questioned on the matter, seems to have escaped Mr. Merrill entirely. Despite Intimations In a Great Issues lecture last December, Prof. Reed expounded and criticized a number of different views having to do with morality and authority. Among these was the view that "No person is ever justified in deliberately de-liberately violating any law." Prof. Reed characterized character-ized this as an absurd view, and gave persuasive arguments argu-ments to support his verdict. Despite Mr. Merrill's intimations to the contrary, neither of the other two participants in that Great Issues program criticized this verdict of Prof. Reed's. On the basis of Mr. Merrill's several letters, it is clear that he disagrees with Prof. Reed's opinion on this matter. That is to say, Mr. Merrill wishes to subscribe to the view that no person is ever justified in deliberately violating any law. He has thus far attempted to defend this absurd view in two ways. First, he has accused Prof. Reed of failure to support his contention that the view is absurd. This is false, as Mr. Merill would know if he had bothered to listen to the Great Issues lecture in which the matter was initially discussed. Great Emancipator Speaks Second, he has recited for us a quotation from Abraham Lincoln, in which The Great Emancipator enjoins us to develop "reverence for the laws." It is to this latter point that Prof. Reed has addressed himself him-self in the past. Since Mr. Merrill apparently did not understand him, I shall address myself to the same point, in the hope of clearing up a few of Mr. Merrill's misapprehensions. In the first place, there is no evidence evi-dence in the supplied quotation that Lincoln would agree with Mr. Merrill's claim that no person is ever justified in deliberately violating any law. "Reverence for the laws" can mean many things; but the least likely of them is a blind adoration for every product of legislation, regardless of how cruel, unjust, or immoral im-moral it may be. Indeed, if Lincoln deserves his reputation rep-utation as a foe of slavery, then he must have been in favor of the Underground Railway, which was dedicated to the systematic violation of the slave laws in the Southern states. Does Lincoln Agree? In the second place, even if Lincoln were in agreement agree-ment with Mr. Merrill's position, that would be completely com-pletely immaterial to the truth or falsity of that position. posi-tion. The eminence of a person does not automatically confer truth upon all of his opinions. If Lincoln had wished to defend Mr. Merrill's position, which is an unlikely eventuality, his prominence would not have excused him from the need to present solid grounds for the truth of his assertions. Nor does Mr. Merrill's readiness to quote prominent individuals excuse him from those same requirements. If Mr. Merrill can present one concrete argument, not involving appeals to revered historical figures, in favor of the view that no person is ever justified in deliberately violating any law, I myself will be more than happy to debate the issue with him in these pages, the editor willing. But until he does present such an argument, there is nothing noth-ing to debate. Inconsistent Position One further point. Prof. Reed's claim was that some people are sometimes justified in deliberately violating some laws. Mr. Merrill disagrees with this, thereby committing himself to the view that no person is ever justified in deliberately violating any law. But from his letter of Feb. 23, it is quite clear that Mr. Merrill also believes that some people are sometimes justified in deliberately violating some laws. Thus, he is in the inconsistent position of agreeing with the very point he disagrees about. I believe it would be advantageous for Mr. Merrill to spend some time deciding de-ciding precisely what it is that he wishes to attack, and what he wishes to defend, before writing further on the matter. Bangs L. Tapscc |