No need to apologize; it's OK to disagree.  And yet, "human" also varies between
"featherless biped" and "rational animal," the latter being under assault
continually with insights into dolphins and chimps, no?   There may even be a
context in which Socrates may be considered "immortal" or nothing at all--if he
were to be a mere rhetorical device of Plato's, no?

Ahhh, the relativity of it all, ne c'est pas?

==Cheers, Reinhold

"Paul E. Doniger" wrote:

> Okay, one last comment, and I'll keep me mouth shut!
>
> Regarding R.S.'s last reposte:
>
> >I suppose we could pursue the matter, couldn't we?  If value judgments are
> >called for, I would certainly insist that capital punishment is murder
> indeed
> >and that no equivocation has taken place at all here.
>
> Well the key idea here are your words, "I would certainly insist, "
> sugesting that the matter is one of opinion and not fact. If the definition
> of the term is one that has multiple interpretations - or can be argued -
> then the possibility exists that there will be an opportunity for abuse.
>
> What matters is not who is "right" (people will disagree forever), but who
> is being honest and true in his/her argument. Begging the question, like all
> falacious arguments, is a form of dishonesty - because it disguises (evades)
> the definition of its terms (what is 'murder'?).
>
> Consequently, your analogous syllogism:
>
> >That's the same as the All
> >humans are mortals; Socrates is a human; thus, Socrates is a mortal.
>
> Alas, it is NOT the same. The analogy breaks down quickly: The terms "human"
> and "mortal" are not open to interpretation as is the term "murder." There
> is never any need for begging this question because there isn't any question
> at all. The capital punishment = murder argument is open to disagreement;
> the Socrates = human = mortal "argument" is not!
>
> I have to agree with Bill:
>
> >> I see it as an example of begging the question because it avoids the
> issue
> >> of defining murder.
>
> Sorry,
>
> Paul D.