To the Editor:
Although I did not read Renata Sago's '10 column ("A love to last past Saturday night," Oct. 30), I'm inclined to agree with her based on the unimpressive counter-argument presented by Sam Loomis '10 ("Random hookups: An apology," Nov. 5).
First, I found it illogical for Loomis to call self-respect an "unrealistic moral expectation" after claiming his own level of self-respect is so transcendental that he can disregard it as he pleases. Aren't higher levels of self-respect, like the one he establishes, even more morally unreasonable?
Also, Loomis uses an excerpt from Jean Jacques Rousseau's "Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men" to justify random hook-ups, specifically citing a section regarding Rousseau's perception of the state of nature. An inherent issue in state of nature theories is that their interpretations differ from philosopher to philosopher. Furthermore, they differ on the basis of what that philosopher wants to prove, namely that their personal values - which they have included as existing in the state of nature - are natural. Additionally, the state of nature is just a theory, not a physical time in history or point of reference. Loomis's argument does not even acknowledge the apparent subjectivity or nonexistence of his "proof." Loomis says his convenient use of a Rousseau passage "shows that random hookups are natural." But, anyone with an appropriate state of nature theory could "show" just the opposite. Being that there is no state of nature or universally accepted state of nature theory, Loomis cannot seriously try to use any conception of such to make an indisputable moral claim.
Lastly, his excerpt comes from a segment of the theory where speech has not yet been established among persons. Since we do have and use speech at Brown, this particular state of nature argument becomes difficult to use unless Loomis would also like to argue that there should be no speech in society.
Ijeoma Njaka '09Nov. 5
