mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/26/85)
In article <1281@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >Paul Dubois doesn't like my answer to the question: "Why should we >care about our own survival?" It seems that "a three year old could >have told you that". Sometimes three year olds say the most pro---found >things. (Really, I'll testify to that in court!) And the so-called >adults just ignore the implications of what the kids have to say. >Didn't someone once describe to beauty of Christian faith as "childlike" >and thus as a wonderful thing? Apparently that holds true until a >three-year old says something so "pro...found", the "new clothes" of >faith are rendered feeble by comparison. Ah, yes, endless streams of rhetoric..... As Tim Moroney points out, it all boils down to these intuitions anyway, so how can you justify your silly little attack? >> Now, we may infer that Rich places a good deal of weight on the value >> of objective judgment, as evidenced by this: >> > To whom have you produced convincing evidence of your argument? >> > Yourself? The reason no one can produce convincing evidence to support >> > YOUR argument might very well be that there IS none, in a real objective >> > sense. >> So we would expect that in the reply to Charley, we would >> see some reason and logic exemplefied. But instead we find: >> > Because we happen to like those things. Don't you? Don't survival, >> > continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living? >> Thus, all the talk about objectivity, examination of presuppositions >> clung to in order to bolster a preconceived desired conclusion, >> wishful thinking, etc., etc. (many of you as well can no doubt mimic >> the usual phrases), is a complete smokescreen. >> Truly, Emperor Rosen has no clothes. When pushed back to his real >> reasons, he says: "because we like them". >Yup, because we like them. That happens to be as objective a statement >as you'll ever see. Why do WE value survival? BECAUSE WE LIKE IT. Because >it brings us pleasure to continue living and reaping benefits of life. >Death, I've heard, is a very painful experience, and after it happens, you >don't get to live life anymore. Thus, we value survival because we like >living, because we gain pleasure (whether you believe a soul gains this >pleasure or that the chemicals of your body predispose you to it) from it. >Now that Paul has allowed me to zip up the philosophical pants I was >already wearing, what exactly does he find UNobjective about that? And where >are HIS clothes? And I suppose that we should therefore do what we please? Rich, I'm sorry but you seem to be missing something very basic here. Morality is proscriptive and prescriptive; it tells you to do things you don't want to do, and forbids some things you want to do. "Because you like it" simply doesn't cut it, especially when you are talking about social interactions. You have in fact given me a very powerful weapon with which to DENY the validity of your moral system; I don't like it. No amount of rational argument can convince. As a matter of fact, I do NOT absolutely value the human race. Some things are more important than survival. Humans appear to be the only animals on earth which can evaluate and change their own nature. This is in fact where any moral obligation at all must come from. To say that we should perpetuate survival as a value simply because we like it is about as unobjective as one can get. The whole moral question is indeed whether liking to do something is sufficient grounds for doing it. It's rather unobjective to say that "we" like survival with some quantification; there is certainly a sizable minority who quite obenly state that survival is a curse. Rich's statement is an intuition, and not objective at all. >Who said anything about "making right"? (You did.) The question was why >do we value survival, why SHOULD we value survival. Seems to me like a >very reasonable answer. Why doesn't it seem that way to you? WRONG. You quoted me above and disproved this yourself. Let's talk about "maximizing freedom" for a minute. Examination of almost any stretch of history shows that for an important minority, minimizing other people's freedom has been a primary goal. You can hardly claim, after all the ranting you've done against the likes of Don Black, that everyone wants to maximize freedom. And it is a primary question: why should the oppressor care about what he does to his victims? Why should he care that they don't like being oppressed? "Because we like it?" Hell, we like to burn villages to the ground. You're arguing against yourself. >A twenty-nine year old just told YOU that. Why didn't you listen to the >three year old in the first place when he/she told you that? The kid sounds >a lot smarter than you, Paul. :-? Gee, I'm younger than you, Rich. Why aren't you liening to me? :-) You can't justify wanting survival. You either do or you don't. (At least you can't unless Ubizmo comes down and tells you "Survival is good".) Certainly one can construct non-theistic moral systems, even absolute ones. But eventually it all comes down to some sort of intuition about the nature of humanity, AND an intuition of what man ought to be like. These things are highly subjective. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Better get used to those bars, kid."
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/27/85)
>>>Thus, all the talk about objectivity, examination of presuppositions >>>clung to in order to bolster a preconceived desired conclusion, >>>wishful thinking, etc., etc. (many of you as well can no doubt mimic >>>the usual phrases), is a complete smokescreen. >>>Truly, Emperor Rosen has no clothes. When pushed back to his real >>>reasons, he says: "because we like them". [DUBOIS] >>Yup, because we like them. That happens to be as objective a statement >>as you'll ever see. Why do WE value survival? BECAUSE WE LIKE IT. Because >>it brings us pleasure to continue living and reaping benefits of life. >>Death, I've heard, is a very painful experience, and after it happens, you >>don't get to live life anymore. Thus, we value survival because we like >>living, because we gain pleasure (whether you believe a soul gains this >>pleasure or that the chemicals of your body predispose you to it) from it. >>Now that Paul has allowed me to zip up the philosophical pants I was >>already wearing, what exactly does he find UNobjective about that? And where >>are HIS clothes? [ROSEN] > And I suppose that we should therefore do what we please? Rich, I'm sorry but > you seem to be missing something very basic here. Morality is proscriptive > and prescriptive; it tells you to do things you don't want to do, and forbids > some things you want to do. "Because you like it" simply doesn't cut it, > especially when you are talking about social interactions. You have in fact > given me a very powerful weapon with which to DENY the validity of your > moral system; I don't like it. No amount of rational argument can convince. That's funny, I wasn't talking about "morality", I was talking about what basis we can use to value our survival. If we REALLY value our survival in the long term, KNOWING that there are other people who have the same interests in surviving that we do, rational people might just come to an agreement about limits of "rights" to interfere inother people's lives. Note that I didn't say "granting" of rights. That would imply some authority to bequeath people with these elusive rights. I said limiting rights. Willingly creating a system that bind people in agreement not to "do as they please" when it comes to interfering with other people, for their own good and the good of the community. Got it? The "weapon" I gave is not just nothing but a water pistol, it's not even loaded! > As a matter of fact, I do NOT absolutely value the human race. Some things > are more important than survival. Humans appear to be the only animals on > earth which can evaluate and change their own nature. This is in fact where > any moral obligation at all must come from. To say that we should perpetuate > survival as a value simply because we like it is about as unobjective as one > can get. The whole moral question is indeed whether liking to do something > is sufficient grounds for doing it. It's rather unobjective to say that "we" > like survival with some quantification; there is certainly a sizable minority > who quite obenly state that survival is a curse. Rich's statement is an > intuition, and not objective at all. On the contrary, it's quite objective precisely because I'm not doing what you might like to think I'm doing: I'm NOT attempting to "justify" survival of human being as an absolute. The question was "Why do we value survival?" and the answer is "Because we like surviving". The question was NOT "Why in an absolute objective sense SHOULD we survive?" Without an assumption of some special status for humanity, there's no such valid reason. Moral "obligation"? Phtooey! >>Who said anything about "making right"? (You did.) The question was why >>do we value survival, why SHOULD we value survival. Seems to me like a >>very reasonable answer. Why doesn't it seem that way to you? > WRONG. You quoted me above and disproved this yourself. Let's talk about > "maximizing freedom" for a minute. Examination of almost any stretch of > history shows that for an important minority, minimizing other people's > freedom has been a primary goal. You can hardly claim, after all the ranting > you've done against the likes of Don Black, that everyone wants to maximize > freedom. And it is a primary question: why should the oppressor care about > what he does to his victims? Why should he care that they don't like being > oppressed? "Because we like it?" Hell, we like to burn villages to the > ground. You're arguing against yourself. I didn't say everyone wants to maximize everyone's freedom. I said everyone wants to maximize THEIR freedom as you said above. I DID say that in order to this for everyone, in order to preserve the benefits of the society for all people, the logical way to go about it that will please the most people in the most beneficial way is a maximization of freedom. >>A twenty-nine year old just told YOU that. Why didn't you listen to the >>three year old in the first place when he/she told you that? The kid sounds >>a lot smarter than you, Paul. :-? > Gee, I'm younger than you, Rich. Why aren't you liening to me? :-) Because age in either direction is not an absolute criteria for rightness either, much as some people seeking automatic respect might wish for... > You can't justify wanting survival. You either do or you don't. (At least > you can't unless Ubizmo comes down and tells you "Survival is good".) > Certainly one can construct non-theistic moral systems, even absolute ones. > But eventually it all comes down to some sort of intuition about the nature > of humanity, AND an intuition of what man ought to be like. These things are > highly subjective. As I said before, 1) I wasn't out to "justify" human survival as an absolute because that can't be done without anthropocentric special status claims. 2) The moral system I have been discussing is a logical outgrowth of the facts that people want to maximize their own benefits and freedom, and it can be shown that through cooperation more people get more benefits, thus such an agreement is advantageous. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/30/85)
In article <1334@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>> Thus, we value survival because we like >>>living, because we gain pleasure (whether you believe a soul gains this >>>pleasure or that the chemicals of your body predispose you to it) from it. >>>Now that Paul has allowed me to zip up the philosophical pants I was >>>already wearing, what exactly does he find UNobjective about that? >> And I suppose that we should therefore do what we please? Rich, I'm sorry >> but you seem to be missing something very basic here. Morality is >> proscriptive and prescriptive; it tells you to do things you don't want >> to do, and forbids some things you want to do. "Because you like it" >> simply doesn't cut it, especially when you are talking about social >> interactions. You have in fact given me a very powerful weapon with >> which to DENY the validity of your moral system; I don't like it. >> No amount of rational argument can convince. >That's funny, I wasn't talking about "morality", I was talking about what >basis we can use to value our survival. If we REALLY value our survival >in the long term, KNOWING that there are other people who have the same >interests in surviving that we do, rational people might just come to >an agreement about limits of "rights" to interfere inother people's lives. Now, let us carry this all back to the original purpose of making this argument about the shared value of survival: to establish Rich's "morality of non-interference" as a moral imperative. Ignoring for the minute whether or not this is really a shared value, Rich is essentially saying that the reason we should accept his moral principle is because "we" like survival. The problem is that, for any individual, it is quite reasonable for him to say, "Well, I value my survival and well-being to the point where I care not about anyone else's." Or, to take a more extreme position: "Since everyone else values cooperation, I can improve my position the best by abusing their trust." It's quite evident that Rich's position does in fact justify the majority trying to suppress this kind of behavior. But the problem is that, for the lawbreaker, Rich's position SUPPORTS his behavior equally well. He is trying to maximize good (as he weights it!), and he is basing his evaluation on his own interests. > Note that I didn't say "granting" of rights. That would imply some >authority to bequeath people >with these elusive rights. I said limiting rights. Willingly creating a >system that bind people in agreement not to "do as they please" when it comes >to interfering with other people, for their own good and the good of the >community. I simply do not understand this last fragment. And Rich, you erroneously assume that I believe in "God-given" rights. I do not; rights derive out of human nature. >> As a matter of fact, I do NOT absolutely value the human race. Some >> things are more important than survival. Humans appear to be the only >> animals on earth which can evaluate and change their own nature. This >> is in fact where any moral obligation at all must come from. To say >> that we should perpetuate survival as a value simply because we like it >> is about as unobjective as one can get. The whole moral question is >> indeed whether liking to do something is sufficient grounds for doing it. >> It's rather unobjective to say that "we" like survival with some >> quantification; there is certainly a sizable minority who quite openly >> state that survival is a curse. Rich's statement is an >> intuition, and not objective at all. >On the contrary, it's quite objective precisely because I'm not doing >what you >might like to think I'm doing: I'm NOT attempting to "justify" survival of >human being as an absolute. The question was "Why do we value survival?" >and the answer is "Because we like surviving". The question was NOT "Why >in an absolute objective sense SHOULD we survive?" Without an assumption >of some special status for humanity, there's no such valid reason. Moral >"obligation"? Phtooey! Therefore, I need pay no attention to your feeble protestations about rights. The fact that you like surviving places no moral onus on me. Sure, I value MY survival, but no one said I valued YOURS. There is in fact NO shared value of abstract human life. In almost every case, there are many situations where any individual does NOT value another's life. And there is of course that minority which does not value their own survival. >> WRONG. You quoted me above and disproved this yourself. Let's talk about >> "maximizing freedom" for a minute. Examination of almost any stretch of >> history shows that for an important minority, minimizing other people's >> freedom has been a primary goal. You can hardly claim, after all the >> ranting >> you've done against the likes of Don Black, that everyone wants to maximize >> freedom. And it is a primary question: why should the oppressor care about >> what he does to his victims? Why should he care that they don't like being >> oppressed? "Because we like it?" Hell, we like to burn villages to the >> ground. You're arguing against yourself. >I didn't say everyone wants to maximize everyone's freedom. I said everyone >wants to maximize THEIR freedom as you said above. I DID say that in order >to [do] this for everyone, in order to preserve the benefits of the >society for all >people, the logical way to go about it that will please the most people in >the most beneficial way is a maximization of freedom. Sure, but you rather baldly assume that pleasing the most people is either a) a universally-desired goal or b) a moral principle. One could equally establish the principle that each individual should try to maximize his own good, and to hell with the rest. So where does this principle come from? >> You can't justify wanting survival. You either do or you don't. (At least >> you can't unless Ubizmo comes down and tells you "Survival is good".) >> Certainly one can construct non-theistic moral systems, even absolute ones. >> But eventually it all comes down to some sort of intuition about the nature >> of humanity, AND an intuition of what man ought to be like. These things >> are highly subjective. > >As I said before, 1) I wasn't out to "justify" human survival as an absolute >because that can't be done without anthropocentric special status claims. >2) The moral system I have been discussing is a logical outgrowth of the >facts that people want to maximize their own benefits and freedom, and it can >be shown that through cooperation more people get more benefits, thus such >an agreement is advantageous. First, I am not claiming that Rich wants his Survival Principle to be absolute. Secondly, there are always people for whom non-cooperation (and abuse of other's cooperation) results in better gains than cooperation would. Rich therefore has no reason to criticise these people. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?"
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/31/85)
> And Rich, you erroneously assume that I believe in "God-given" rights. I do > not; rights derive out of human nature. This is consistent with your previous contributions. I would be interested in your: 1) definition of human nature 2) model of human nature 3) explanation as to why "rights" should be based on this model. (If you and a tiger were on an isolated island, your model should explain why one should kill the other to survive, and who does the killing.) > First, I am not claiming that Rich wants his Survival Principle to be > absolute. Secondly, there are always people for whom non-cooperation (and > abuse of other's cooperation) results in better gains than cooperation would. > Rich therefore has no reason to criticise these people. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe The criticism has been made that the "cooperation" and "because I like" basis for morality are not valid since there will be people that will abuse such principles, and probably gain as a result. This criticism is invalid for the following reasons: a) The validity of a moral system does not rely on one hundred percent acceptance on the part of those for which it is intended. b) It makes no sense to reject a moral system on the basis that total acceptance is neither guaranteed, nor likely. All moral systems will not necessarily be totally accepted, therefore acceptance cannot be a criterion for evaluation. c) If cooperation is the basis for the system, then non-cooperation can be condemned, by the system. Padraig Houlahan.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/01/85)
[this article has been reordered.] In article <456@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> First, I am not claiming that Rich wants his Survival Principle to be >> absolute. Secondly, there are always people for whom non-cooperation (and >> abuse of other's cooperation) results in better gains than cooperation >> would. Rich therefore has no reason to criticise these people. > >The criticism has been made that the "cooperation" and "because I like" basis >for morality are not valid since there will be people that will abuse such >principles, and probably gain as a result. Let's try this again, since I don't think I'm being understood here. Rich appears to be saying that morality (his morality, which he claims has some universal application) derives from a shared realization that cooperation (as Rich views it) maximizes good overall. The problem I see is that this understanding of the world is NOT universal, perhaps not even a majority view. For those who do not agree to this view, there will necessarily be a different conclusion about morality's nature. But since Rich is claiming that personal desire is the justification for this system, aren't these dissenters perfectly justified in rejecting his system? Rich's morality seems to apply only to those people who agree that it is true! It is not universal. This seems to hamstring it severely. > This criticism is invalid for the >following reasons: > a) The validity of a moral system does not rely on one hundred percent > acceptance on the part of those for which it is intended. This depends entirely on the basis for the system. If you claim that the system is prexisting and does not depend on assent, than this is clearly true. But Rich is saying that his system arises out of assent to his notion about cooperation; therefore his system is only valid for those people who agree with Rich's principle. > b) It makes no sense to reject a moral system on the basis that total > acceptance is neither guaranteed, nor likely. All moral systems will > not necessarily be totally accepted, therefore acceptance cannot be a > criterion for evaluation. This is essentially identical to the above argument. If you base a system on people's acceptance of a principle, then the system clearly has force only for those who accept it. There is no reason you should expect those who don't accept the principle. > c) If cooperation is the basis for the system, then non-cooperation > can be condemned, by the system. Perhaps so, but there can be no moral onus on those who believe that cooperation is not advantageous. >> And Rich, you erroneously assume that I believe in "God-given" rights. I >> do not; rights derive out of human nature. >This is consistent with your previous contributions. I would be interested >in your: > 1) definition of human nature Well, Webster's definition will do: "the complex of fundamental dispositions and traits of man" > 2) model of human nature Now I'm going to complicate things tremendously. I don't really have a fixed model of human nature. I'm not sure that I have a variable model. The most I think I would claim is that people have a tendency to do evil even though they assent to good. (This should be recognizable as the doctrine of sin.) THere also seems to be a certain need for privacy and freedom. Beyond that I'm very hazy, since people are so variable. > 3) explanation as to why "rights" should be based on this model. > (If you and a tiger were on an isolated island, your model > should explain why one should kill the other to survive, > and who does the killing.) Wrong. You've moved away from rights into true moral dilemmas. Assuming that we assign both the man and the tiger a right to survive (seems reasonable enough if you take each in isolation), then there is a conflict in rights. Now we've moved from rights up into true moral dilemmas. In this case, the dilemma is whether the man should a) kill the tiger or b) let the tiger kill him. We almost invariably assert that human rights take priority over animal rights, so we let the man kill the tiger. But this moral principle does NOT derive directly from human nature, any more than it derives directly from tiger nature. There's an intuited principle at work: that human survival is more important. Unless you throw morality away completely and say, "let them fight it out and see who wins," there's no way to resolve this without appealing to such a principle. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/02/85)
>>The criticism has been made that the "cooperation" and "because I like" basis >>for morality are not valid since there will be people that will abuse such >>principles, and probably gain as a result. >... But since Rich is claiming that personal >desire is the justification for this system, aren't these dissenters perfectly >justified in rejecting his system? Rich's morality seems to apply only to >those people who agree that it is true! It is not universal. This seems >to hamstring it severely. I don't understand the objection here. Are you trying to tell me that there is a system that everyone accepts? If so let's hear it. If not, your criticism doesn't carry much weight. >> This criticism is invalid for the >>following reasons: > >> a) The validity of a moral system does not rely on one hundred percent >> acceptance on the part of those for which it is intended. > >This depends entirely on the basis for the system. If you claim that the >system is prexisting and does not depend on assent, than this is >clearly true. But Rich is saying that his system arises out of assent to >his notion about cooperation; therefore his system is only valid for those >people who agree with Rich's principle. Again, one may decide that mutual cooperation is best for society, while choosing not to abide by such a principle. (Criminals are quite happy to run to the courts when it suits them.) >> c) If cooperation is the basis for the system, then non-cooperation >> can be condemned, by the system. > >Perhaps so, but there can be no moral onus on those who believe that >cooperation is not advantageous. True. So what? This has always been the case. If I recall correctly the question was essentially how could someone be condemned by the system based on cooperation. >>This is consistent with your previous contributions. I would be interested >>in your: >> 1) definition of human nature > >Well, Webster's definition will do: > > "the complex of fundamental dispositions and traits of man" Wait a minute here. You criticized those who defended cooperation, and the "because I like" basis for morality on the grounds that no model of human nature was presented. By your definition of human nature these bases are clearly aspects of human nature. Padraig Houlahan.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/03/85)
>>That's funny, I wasn't talking about "morality", I was talking about what >>basis we can use to value our survival. If we REALLY value our survival >>in the long term, KNOWING that there are other people who have the same >>interests in surviving that we do, rational people might just come to >>an agreement about limits of "rights" to interfere inother people's lives. > Now, let us carry this all back to the original purpose of making this > argument about the shared value of survival: to establish Rich's "morality of > non-interference" as a moral imperative. Ignoring for the minute whether or > not this is really a shared value, Rich is essentially saying that the reason > we should accept his moral principle is because "we" like survival. The > problem is that, for any individual, it is quite reasonable for him to say, > "Well, I value my survival and well-being to the point where I care not about > anyone else's." Or, to take a more extreme position: "Since everyone else > values cooperation, I can improve my position the best by abusing their > trust." It's quite evident that Rich's position does in fact justify the > majority trying to suppress this kind of behavior. But the problem is that, > for the lawbreaker, Rich's position SUPPORTS his behavior equally well. He is > trying to maximize good (as he weights it!), and he is basing his evaluation > on his own interests. [WINGATE] But if he has any common sense, he knows that he will not maximize his good by engaging in such behavior in a society that will suppress him for doing so. Ultimate, longterm maximization. Not quick and dirty gratification that will result in minimizing good (and perhaps maximizing retribution) in the long run. Do you have common sense, Charley? I thought so. >> Note that I didn't say "granting" of rights. That would imply some >>authority to bequeath people >>with these elusive rights. I said limiting rights. Willingly creating a >>system that bind people in agreement not to "do as they please" when it comes >>to interfering with other people, for their own good and the good of the >>community. > I simply do not understand this last fragment. Then I'll reiterate. There is really no such thing as granting of rights. Within the limits of physical practicality, I am essentially free to do anything I might desire. There is no "granting" of these rights. You've got them. There are only two ways to take them away: 1) force or threat of physical force, 2) by agreement evolving from cooperation. OR by a combination of both. When you belong to a community/society, you get certain benefits from membership. In return, to allow the society to continue performing its function and (hopefully) maximizing benefits, you agree to limit your rights. You are NOT free to do the things restricted by the society. Given this, what basis could a society have to limit rights beyond the minimal restrictions possible: non-interference? I can't think of any. Can the society tell people how or when to have lunch? Sex? Take showers? Wait a minute, you're saying, it could get to the point where your not taking showers (or generally keeping your surroundings clean) affects your neighbors? There you go! The point of interference. > And Rich, you erroneously assume that I believe in "God-given" rights. I do > not; rights derive out of human nature. Rights derive out of physical ability to do things. An animal predator has the "right" to hunt and eat its prey. This human nature stuff you keep bringing up continues to be irrelevant. >>On the contrary, it's quite objective precisely because I'm not doing >>what you >>might like to think I'm doing: I'm NOT attempting to "justify" survival of >>human being as an absolute. The question was "Why do we value survival?" >>and the answer is "Because we like surviving". The question was NOT "Why >>in an absolute objective sense SHOULD we survive?" Without an assumption >>of some special status for humanity, there's no such valid reason. Moral >>"obligation"? Phtooey! > Therefore, I need pay no attention to your feeble protestations about rights. You do if you live in the same society that I do. And what's more, these are not "feeble protestations about rights", they are substantive arguments against limitations of rights. > The fact that you like surviving places no moral onus on me. Sure, I value > MY survival, but no one said I valued YOURS. There is in fact NO shared > value of abstract human life. In almost every case, there are many situations > where any individual does NOT value another's life. And there is of course > that minority which does not value their own survival. Charles, I don't give a flying petunia whether you "value" my survival or not. The fact is that each person does, and the world does not revolve around your egocentric "values". It is the fact that EACH of us values survival that encourages us to cooperate. Whether or not you altruistically or otherwise value my survival is irrelevant to me. Except in that you should recall the words of Pastor Niemoller, who (at first) didn't the value the survival of Jews, and homosexuals, and Communists, and Catholics, and so on. If that's not basis enough for valuing other people's survival (the fact that you are just as vulnerable to what happens to the other guy), then I have wonder about whether you DO have common sense... >>I didn't say everyone wants to maximize everyone's freedom. I said everyone >>wants to maximize THEIR freedom as you said above. I DID say that in order >>to [do] this for everyone, in order to preserve the benefits of the >>society for all >>people, the logical way to go about it that will please the most people in >>the most beneficial way is a maximization of freedom. > Sure, but you rather baldly assume that pleasing the most people is either > a) a universally-desired goal or b) a moral principle. One could equally > establish the principle that each individual should try to maximize his > own good, and to hell with the rest. So where does this principle come > from? Baldly? I still have all my hair, thank you, Charles. You quoted the principle yourself above: in a society where others have grouped together in cooperation, it is in your interest to join them, or either 1) fend for yourself outside of their society or 2) face their wrath when you try to take benefits without fulfilling the responsibilities of membership in their society. You said it at least as eloquently as I did. >>As I said before, 1) I wasn't out to "justify" human survival as an absolute >>because that can't be done without anthropocentric special status claims. >>2) The moral system I have been discussing is a logical outgrowth of the >>facts that people want to maximize their own benefits and freedom, and it can >>be shown that through cooperation more people get more benefits, thus such >>an agreement is advantageous. > First, I am not claiming that Rich wants his Survival Principle to be > absolute. Secondly, there are always people for whom non-cooperation (and > abuse of other's cooperation) results in better gains than cooperation would. > Rich therefore has no reason to criticise these people. Ever hear the phrase "whole > sum of parts"? No matter. You yourself showed above how logical and rational it is to cooperate rather than face the wrath and/or retribution of the cooperative society. So what are you arguing about? You agreed with me. Now you're just DISagreeing with yourself, it seems. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/03/85)
From rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen): > If we REALLY value our survival in the long term, KNOWING that there are > other people who have the same interests in surviving that we do, rational > people might just come to an agreement about limits of "rights" to interfere > inother people's lives. Note that I didn't say "granting" of rights. That > would imply some authority to bequeath people with these elusive rights. > I said limiting rights. Willingly creating a system that binds people in > agreement not to "do as they please" when it comes to interfering with > other people, for their own good and the good of the community. It is interesting to note that Rich Rosen's morality, when reduced to its essential statement, is expressed as a *negative*: "Thou shalt not interfere." Despite statements of long-faced legalistic bluenoses to the contrary, the morality of Christianity is expressed by *positive* statements (Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all you've got, and thy neighbor as thyself), and God promises to change us so that we are the sort of people that behave this way naturally, rather than in order to avoid violating some restriction. The second way (elimination of need for restrictions) sounds a whole lot freer in the long run. If you want REAL freedom, Rich, you're looking in the wrong place. > As I said before, 1) I wasn't out to "justify" human survival as an absolute > because that can't be done without anthropocentric special status claims. > 2) The moral system I have been discussing is a logical outgrowth of the > facts that people want to maximize their own benefits and freedom, and it > can be shown that through cooperation more people get more benefits, thus > such an agreement is advantageous. You are actually being much less than anthropocentric; you're being Rich-centric. You justify your own survival only on the grounds that you like it, and you justify your non-interference morality only because it would benefit YOU. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16) The prayer of a not-so-righteous man availeth sometimes.... (Rich McDaniel)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/03/85)
> It is interesting to note that Rich Rosen's morality, when reduced to its > essential statement, is expressed as a negative: "Thou shalt not interfere." > Despite statements of long-faced legalistic bluenoses to the contrary, the > morality of Christianity is expressed by positive statements (Thou shalt love > the Lord thy God with all you've got, and thy neighbor as thyself), and God > promises to change us so that we are the sort of people that behave this way > naturally, rather than in order to avoid violating some restriction. The > second way (elimination of need for restrictions) sounds a whole lot freer > in the long run. If you want REAL freedom, Rich, you're looking in the > wrong place. [SARGENT] Ah, YOU phrase my morality as negative, and yours as a positive, and thus (in the proven-to-be-correct Jeff Sargent world view), there you are! It's nice to see YOU still have a sense of humor. First, I'm not sure what would make a morality that states things positively "better" (except subjectively) than one that states things negatively. Second, it's just as easy (and much more accurate) to phrase "my" morality as "Thou shalt respect the rights of other human beings" and "yours" as "Thou shalt not have sex outside of marriage, do any of a large set of other things proscribed, etc." More importantly, in a world where, at root level, you have a RIGHT to do anything within your ability (what's to stop you?), the way you form a society of cooperating people is to agree to limit those rights so that you do not interfere with others, thus giving YOU the benefit that others will not interfere with you. Nobody "grants" rights. In fact, what our government and Constitution say, effectively, is: "You have agreed to make this your form of government, and a government exists to impose such laws and restrictions as deemed necessary to keep everything in order. Since this is supposed to be YOUR government, it agrees NOT to create laws (or allow other people to) that infringe in these areas." >> As I said before, 1) I wasn't out to "justify" human survival as an absolute >> because that can't be done without anthropocentric special status claims. >> 2) The moral system I have been discussing is a logical outgrowth of the >> facts that people want to maximize their own benefits and freedom, and it >> can be shown that through cooperation more people get more benefits, thus >> such an agreement is advantageous. > You are actually being much less than anthropocentric; you're being > Rich-centric. You justify your own survival only on the grounds that you > like it, and you justify your non-interference morality only because it > would benefit YOU. Imagine that, this morality is Rich-centric. It also happens to be Jeff-centric, and Arndt-centric, and Joe-centric, and Tom-centric. Do you see something wrong with this? It's a basically selfish morality, that limits that immediate selfishness that would result in harm for others, thus extending the longterm selfish benefit FOR EACH PERSON. Are you making a value judgment that because it is based on such rational selfishness, it "must" be bad? Imagine that, pseudo-altruistic cooperation really is selfishness... -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/05/85)
In article <473@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >>... But since Rich is claiming that personal >>desire is the justification for this system, aren't these dissenters >>perfectly justified in rejecting his system? Rich's morality seems to >>apply only to those people who agree that it is true! It is not >>universal. This seems to hamstring it severely. >I don't understand the objection here. Are you trying to tell me that >there is a system that everyone accepts? If so let's hear it. If not, your >criticism doesn't carry much weight. That isn't the problem. THe problem is, if you are going to say that "this is the moral system to follow", you need to have some justification for expecting others to follow it. But for those people who disagree with Rich's rationale for his system, it seems to me that Rich has written away his right to criticize them for not following it. He is saying that the basis for his system is the realization that cooperation can "maximize" good. But a person who may recognize that this is true may still prefer to maximize his own good at the expense of others. Since everthing is based on desires, Rich has no good reason for taking his viewpoint as the preferred one. Even if his view is the majority, there is nothing preventing the majority from being immoral. Therefore, Rich's morality is strictly personal; you must expect it of yourself, but you can't expect it of anyone else. >>This depends entirely on the basis for the system. If you claim that the >>system is prexisting and does not depend on assent, than this is >>clearly true. But Rich is saying that his system arises out of assent to >>his notion about cooperation; therefore his system is only valid for those >>people who agree with Rich's principle. >Again, one may decide that mutual cooperation is best for society, while >choosing not to abide by such a principle. (Criminals are quite happy to >run to the courts when it suits them.) Right, but this in fact reinforces my point. A morality of convenience is certainly different from what Rich proposes, but I don't think he has a leg to stand on when he condemns it. >>Perhaps so, but there can be no moral onus on those who believe that >>cooperation is not advantageous. >True. So what? This has always been the case. If I recall correctly the >question was essentially how could someone be condemned by the system based >on cooperation. No! This is NOT the case! Any system which sees morality as pre-existing, and NOT based on human assent to a principle, allows this kind of determination. See, the problem is that Rich has denied himself cooperation as a pre-existent Good. He therefore has no reason to complain when someone else follows a system based upon (say) competition. >>Well, Webster's definition [of "human nature"] will do: >> "the complex of fundamental dispositions and traits of man" >Wait a minute here. You criticized those who defended cooperation, and the >"because I like" basis for morality on the grounds that no model >of human nature was presented. By your definition of human nature these >bases are clearly aspects of human nature. Well, let's consider Rich's cooperation principle. Now you can make two arguments against it (ignoring the validity of those arguments for the moment): (1) Either it doesn't conform to the definition, or (2) It is not sufficiently universal. I will grant that Rich's principle passes test (1). So in a sense I am retracting my previous statement. I think it's highly questionable whether or not it passes (2). Assuming that a majority are inclined towards cooperation, the minority is certainly still very large. Even so, I think that, besides a model of human nature, you also need a model of what human nature OUGHT to be. It simply isn't valid to say that "ALL humans should cooperate" because "MOST humans want to cooperate"; morality simply isn't a ratification of group will. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "What about all that talk about changing future events, the space-time continuum?" "Well, I figured, what the heck."
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/06/85)
> Let's try this again, since I don't think I'm being understood here. Rich > appears to be saying that morality (his morality, which he claims has some > universal application) derives from a shared realization that cooperation > (as Rich views it) maximizes good overall. The problem I see is that this > understanding of the world is NOT universal, perhaps not even a majority view. > For those who do not agree to this view, there will necessarily be a different > conclusion about morality's nature. But since Rich is claiming that personal > desire is the justification for this system, aren't these dissenters perfectly > justified in rejecting his system? [WINGATE] Sure, and the point is, given YOUR old friend "human nature" (e.g., the tendency of human beings to get angry and vicious towards those who wrong them, such as those who take from their cooperative society without giving), they'd be very stupid to do so. > Rich's morality seems to apply only to those people who agree that it is > true! It is not universal. This seems to hamstring it severely. Hardly. See above. > If you claim that the > system is prexisting and does not depend on assent, than this is > clearly true. But Rich is saying that his system arises out of assent to > his notion about cooperation; therefore his system is only valid for those > people who agree with Rich's principle. It's only valid in the presence of cooperating societies, you mean. Once you have some people banded together in this way, and you admit that some have the sense to do this, it is in the interest of those remaining to do so. >> c) If cooperation is the basis for the system, then non-cooperation >> can be condemned, by the system. > Perhaps so, but there can be no moral onus on those who believe that > cooperation is not advantageous. So? Then they'll lose out. No force of morality necessary. Force of REality works just fine. And if it doesn't, that becomes their problem, doesn't it? >> I would be interested in your: >> 1) definition of human nature > Well, Webster's definition will do: > "the complex of fundamental dispositions and traits of man" But what does that have to do with anything said here? >> 2) model of human nature > Now I'm going to complicate things tremendously. I don't really have a > fixed model of human nature. I'm not sure that I have a variable model. > The most I think I would claim is that people have a tendency to do evil > even though they assent to good. (This should be recognizable as the > doctrine of sin.) Uh, uh, uh, Charley. You had said that for purposes of this argument you had abandoned "Christian moral principles" (at least as an assumption, or so I thought). Define "evil". Carefully. What does it mean that people have a "tendency to do evil"? I claim that all this means is that in seeking out their wants in an unrestricted way, people have the tendency to step on other people and their wants. Not because of some hideous force of "evil" (sin) inside man that you presuppose. The very fact of cooperative agreement between people is a recognition of this fact, and a formula through which people can CONTINUE to seek out their wants with only the most minimal of restrictions, those being non-interference. >> 3) explanation as to why "rights" should be based on this model. >> (If you and a tiger were on an isolated island, your model >> should explain why one should kill the other to survive, >> and who does the killing.) > Wrong. You've moved away from rights into true moral dilemmas. Assuming that > we assign both the man and the tiger a right to survive (seems reasonable > enough if you take each in isolation), then there is a conflict in rights. > Now we've moved from rights up into true moral dilemmas. In this case, the > dilemma is whether the man should a) kill the tiger or b) let the tiger > kill him. We almost invariably assert that human rights take priority > over animal rights, so we let the man kill the tiger. Hold on. "WE"? "LET?" Are we pulling puppet strings here? No, Charley, these moral dilemmas are very important in analyzing the concept of rights. Why do "human rights take priority over animal rights"? Because WE are human! Do you think the tiger just says "Oh, uh, yeah, uh-huh, well, uh, you're a human, so, uh, go ahead and kill me!"? Not bloody likely. For the tiger, tigral rights are clearly more important (if a tiger could understand rights). So all this hooey about rights is just a matter of perspective. It's not likely that the man could form a bond of cooperation with the tiger (perhaps he might with a sea-bird, who could catch things and bring them back, or even the tiger might be domesticatable, I don't know, it would surely depend on the man and the tiger and the bird. [HUH?]). But seriously, what does human nature have to do with this notion of rights? > But this moral > principle does NOT derive directly from human nature, any more than it > derives directly from tiger nature. So? > There's an intuited principle at work: that human survival is more important. See above for an explanation of where this intuitive principle stems from. > Unless you throw morality > away completely and say, "let them fight it out and see who wins," there's > no way to resolve this without appealing to such a principle. Maybe we should then in this case. And maybe we should discard your preconceptions about morality in the general case as well. When you say "such a principle", what do you mean? -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/06/85)
> >I don't understand the objection here. Are you trying to tell me that > >there is a system that everyone accepts? If so let's hear it. If not, your > >criticism doesn't carry much weight. > > That isn't the problem. THe problem is, if you are going to say that "this > is the moral system to follow", you need to have some justification for > expecting others to follow it. But for those people who disagree with Rich's > rationale for his system, it seems to me that Rich has written away his right > to criticize them for not following it. He is saying that the basis for > his system is the realization that cooperation can "maximize" good. But a > person who may recognize that this is true may still prefer to maximize his > own good at the expense of others. Since everthing is based on desires, Rich > has no good reason for taking his viewpoint as the preferred one. Even if > his view is the majority, there is nothing preventing the majority from being > immoral. Therefore, Rich's morality is strictly personal; you must expect > it of yourself, but you can't expect it of anyone else. I agree pretty much with most of this. I don't see it as a great problem that it is strictly personal. I think that basically the majority decides what is "moral" until forced to recognize the need to review some of its currently held tenets (an example of this would be the era of the civil rights movement). I don't think it makes sense to talk about "immoral" majorities, since I have never seen any evidence that any society has ever held "moral" tenets that have never undergone revision. There are no absolutes that I am aware of. As a test of this can we come up the some society that we both would agree was "immoral", but which did not cause discomfort to its population? One may try to get South Africa and Nazi Germany to fit this mold but they wont. I claim that the basis for their "immorality" is the pain they cause. I don't agree that Rich has written away his right to criticize anyone who advocates excessive self indulgence at the expense of other's personal comfort, since Rich may be on the receiving end of the action. It seems that we must agree to differ here. > ... Assuming that a majority are inclined towards > cooperation, the minority is certainly still very large. Even so, I think > that, besides a model of human nature, you also need a model of what human > nature OUGHT to be. It simply isn't valid to say that "ALL humans should > cooperate" because "MOST humans want to cooperate"; morality simply isn't > a ratification of group will. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe I think the argument runs "All humans should cooperate" because "most humans realize that they benefit through cooperation, and hence want to". Padraig Houlahan.
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/07/85)
From rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen): >> It is interesting to note that Rich Rosen's morality, when reduced to its >> essential statement, is expressed as a negative: "Thou shalt not interfere." >> Despite statements of long-faced legalistic bluenoses to the contrary, the >> morality of Christianity is expressed by positive statements (Thou shalt love >> the Lord thy God with all you've got, and thy neighbor as thyself), and God >> promises to change us so that we are the sort of people that behave this way >> naturally, rather than in order to avoid violating some restriction. The >> second way (elimination of need for restrictions) sounds a whole lot freer >> in the long run. If you want REAL freedom, Rich, you're looking in the >> wrong place. [SARGENT] > .... First, I'm not sure what would > make a morality that states things positively "better" (except subjectively) > than one that states things negatively. Second, it's just as easy (and much > more accurate) to phrase "my" morality as "Thou shalt respect the rights of > other human beings" and "yours" as "Thou shalt not have sex outside of > marriage, do any of a large set of other things proscribed, etc." It's not just a matter of STATING things positively. Your morality still boils down to "Do not prevent others from reaching their fullest potential". And (trying not to flame here), it is only those bluenoses I mentioned who consider Christian morality to be a bunch of proscriptions, as you think it is. The statements I quoted about loving God and your neighbor are as far removed from proscriptions and restrictions as anything could be. Christ's morality boils down to "Help others as well as yourself to reach their fullest potential" -- a much bigger, more difficult and taxing (hence more unappealing), but more positive statement. (To qualify this discussion for net.philosophy, there's an interesting subtopic, quite apart from any religious overtones: Which sort of morality is better? One that keeps you out of others' way, or one wherein the best practitioner goes out of his/her way to help others?) > In fact, what our government and Constitution say, effectively, is: "You > have agreed to make this your form of government, and a government exists > to impose such laws and restrictions as deemed necessary to keep everything > in order. Since this is supposed to be YOUR government, it agrees NOT to > create laws (or allow other people to) that infringe in these areas." This isn't net.politics, but that view of our government is a bit out of date. For example, if a cop ever catches you speeding and you do anything other than brown-nose him, you're likely to catch hell; whereas if you submit meekly, you may get off with a warning. This is a major infringement of rights, and it happens in this country. > Imagine that, this [Rich's non-interference] morality is Rich-centric. It > also happens to be Jeff-centric, and Arndt-centric, and Joe-centric, and > Tom-centric. Do you see something wrong with this? It's a basically selfish > morality, that limits that immediate selfishness that would result in harm for > others, thus extending the longterm selfish benefit FOR EACH PERSON. Are you > making a value judgment that because it is based on such rational selfishness, > it "must" be bad? Imagine that, pseudo-altruistic cooperation really is > selfishness... I'm not saying it's bad at all; it's certainly better than a lot of societal arrangements which exist in the world. I'm just saying it's not the best. A society of love would beat a society of non-interference any day, and be a lot more joyous (because a lot less self-conscious) into the bargain. It sounds to me like the non-interference morality is, at bottom, based on the idea of "I don't want to be hurt" -- the same thing on which the perfectionistic version of Christianity which I am outgrowing is based on. (Actually, you have yourself said that its underlying idea is that you value [like] survival, i.e. you don't want to die. There's only one problem with this approach: Eventually, none of us will get out of life alive, no matter how much or little others interfere with us.) Biblical Christianity is closer to this idea: "So what if I am hurt? It's not forever." and even "So what if I die? It's not forever." -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16) The prayer of a not-so-righteous man availeth sometimes.... (Rich McDaniel)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/07/85)
>>I don't understand the objection here. Are you trying to tell me that >>there is a system that everyone accepts? If so let's hear it. If not, your >>criticism doesn't carry much weight. [PADRAIG] > That isn't the problem. THe problem is, if you are going to say that "this > is the moral system to follow", you need to have some justification for > expecting others to follow it. But for those people who disagree with Rich's > rationale for his system, it seems to me that Rich has written away his right > to criticize them for not following it. [WINGATE] Written away? For those people who disagree with the notion of the system, the system will in turn "disagree" with their notions of theft and interference, at their expense. There is no "justification" for following it. Except common sense, good old save your neck common sense. Which may be why... (No, I won't say it :-) > He is saying that the basis for > his system is the realization that cooperation can "maximize" good. But a > person who may recognize that this is true may still prefer to maximize his > own good at the expense of others. Since everthing is based on desires, Rich > has no good reason for taking his viewpoint as the preferred one. Even if > his view is the majority, there is nothing preventing the majority from being > immoral. Therefore, Rich's morality is strictly personal; you must expect > it of yourself, but you can't expect it of anyone else. My god, you're right!!! There's NOTHING preventing the majority from being "immoral". Except, once again, good old common sense. > Right, but this in fact reinforces my point. A morality of convenience is > certainly different from what Rich proposes, but I don't think he has a leg > to stand on when he condemns it. A morality of common sense in the face of groups of cooperating people forming a society and protecting its interests against interferers. A "morality of convenience" sounds fine to me, as long as the "conveniences" don't involve interfering with the other people in the society, because certainly that will urge on retribution. >>True. So what? This has always been the case. If I recall correctly the >>question was essentially how could someone be condemned by the system based >>on cooperation. > No! This is NOT the case! Any system which sees morality as pre-existing, and > NOT based on human assent to a principle, allows this kind of determination. > See, the problem is that Rich has denied himself cooperation as a pre-existent > Good. He therefore has no reason to complain when someone else follows a > system based upon (say) competition. No, of course not, because the system I propose *is* based on competition, or on "the strong survive" or stuff like that. Because the cooperating groups are stronger than the individuals who seek to take from the system without recompense and interfere with its members. One very good reason for not "coperating" with a "pre-existent god": we haven't found one yet. And there has been no evidence to suggest that there is one other than Charles' desire to have one to appeal for an ultimate morality. Your cart is before your horse. >>Wait a minute here. You criticized those who defended cooperation, and the >>"because I like" basis for morality on the grounds that no model >>of human nature was presented. By your definition of human nature these >>bases are clearly aspects of human nature. > Well, let's consider Rich's cooperation principle. Now you can make two > arguments against it (ignoring the validity of those arguments for the > moment): > (1) Either it doesn't conform to the definition, or > (2) It is not sufficiently universal. > > I will grant that Rich's principle passes test (1). So in a sense I am > retracting my previous statement. I think it's highly questionable whether > or not it passes (2). Assuming that a majority are inclined towards > cooperation, the minority is certainly still very large. Even so, I think > that, besides a model of human nature, you also need a model of what human > nature OUGHT to be. It simply isn't valid to say that "ALL humans should > cooperate" because "MOST humans want to cooperate"; morality simply isn't > a ratification of group will. It isn't? Oh, yes, that's right, if you've got that cart (god) before your horse (morality). There's no requirement that a morality have some universal appeal, is there. Only if you presuppose god does that apply, and certainly not all of us have the need to do that. What morality needs is a common sense basis for believing that it is in your interest to stick to it, and that there are good reasons for having it. Fini. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/08/85)
>>>It is interesting to note that Rich Rosen's morality, when reduced to its >>>essential statement, is expressed as a negative: "Thou shalt not interfere." >>> [SARGENT] >>.... First, I'm not sure what would >>make a morality that states things positively "better" (except subjectively) >>than one that states things negatively. Second, it's just as easy (and much >>more accurate) to phrase "my" morality as "Thou shalt respect the rights of >>other human beings" and "yours" as "Thou shalt not have sex outside of >>marriage, do any of a large set of other things proscribed, etc." [ROSEN] > It's not just a matter of STATING things positively. Your morality still > boils down to "Do not prevent others from reaching their fullest potential". By telling them that the ONLY restrictions on their freedom are that they not interfere with other people, this system "prevents" people from reaching their fullest potential??? Huh? On the contrary, it provides the very best means for them to do so. It took me ten or so readings before I figured out what the heck you are trying to say: I think you're implying that "only this book can tell you the best way, and by reading it and avoiding all life's dangers and pitfalls, you are 'helped' to reach your best potential". Even if you accept the erroneous notion that this book contains only "best ways", one gets the most out of life by living and learning. If I accepted a list of proscriptions as the "best ways", and avoided any other possibilities open to me, how have I grown? What have I learned? What use has my life been? It is ONLY through having as many possibilities open to you as possible, and learning that choosing from among them and living them through, AND even MAKING MISTAKES that your life is maximally enhanced. >>In fact, what our government and Constitution say, effectively, is: "You >>have agreed to make this your form of government, and a government exists >>to impose such laws and restrictions as deemed necessary to keep everything >>in order. Since this is supposed to be YOUR government, it agrees NOT to >>create laws (or allow other people to) that infringe in these areas." > This isn't net.politics, but that view of our government is a bit out of > date. For example, if a cop ever catches you speeding and you do anything > other than brown-nose him, you're likely to catch hell; whereas if you > submit meekly, you may get off with a warning. This is a major > infringement of rights, and it happens in this country. We're talking about the goals and ideals that motivate the formation and acceptance of a government, not the problems with the implementation. We should never let the bad implementation allow us to lose sight of the original goals. But alas, we have. >> Imagine that, this [Rich's non-interference] morality is Rich-centric. It >> also happens to be Jeff-centric, and Arndt-centric, and Joe-centric, and >> Tom-centric. Do you see something wrong with this? It's a basically >> selfish morality, that limits that immediate selfishness that would result >> in harm for others, thus extending the longterm selfish benefit FOR EACH >> PERSON. Are you making a value judgment that because it is based on such >> rational selfishness, it "must" be bad? Imagine that, pseudo-altruistic >> cooperation really is selfishness... > I'm not saying it's bad at all; it's certainly better than a lot of societal > arrangements which exist in the world. I'm just saying it's not the best. > A society of love would beat a society of non-interference any day, and be a > lot more joyous (because a lot less self-conscious) into the bargain. But how do you MAKE people love each other? By force? By edict? By indoctrination? The beauty of the non-interference system is that there is little or no need for actual force; common sense is your MOTIVATION for living up to that morality: if you do interfere, you're likely to get in trouble with those you interfere with. The "society of love" is an unrealistic concept, because unrequited altruistic love is not in everyone's self interest, and thus anyone who sees through this just doesn't bother. > It sounds to me like the non-interference morality is, at bottom, based on > the idea of "I don't want to be hurt" -- the same thing on which the > perfectionistic version of Christianity which I am outgrowing is based on. A lot of things sound a lot of different ways to you, Jeff. If you want to project your own "hurt" feelings onto other people and other systems of belief, please don't tell it to me. It would be much appreciated. I am appealing to the newly changed Jeff's newfound rationality. > (Actually, you have yourself said that its underlying idea is that you value > [like] survival, i.e. you don't want to die. There's only one problem with > this approach: Eventually, none of us will get out of life alive, no matter > how much or little others interfere with us.) I can't think of too much we can do about this, which is precisely why we try to maximize our lives. > Biblical Christianity is > closer to this idea: "So what if I am hurt? It's not forever." and even > "So what if I die? It's not forever." But, of course, that's putting the cart before the horse. (Why am I using that phrase so much lately?) You don't want to be hurt, you seek an extension to life, so you make one up. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/10/85)
YA response to Rich Rosen (pyuxd!rlr): >> Your morality still >> boils down to "Do not prevent others from reaching their fullest potential". > By telling them that the ONLY restrictions on their freedom are that they > not interfere with other people, this system "prevents" people from reaching > their fullest potential??? Huh? On the contrary, it provides the very best > means for them to do so. It took me ten or so readings before I figured out > what the heck you are trying to say: And you still got it absolutely wrong!!! Please note that I *said* that your system says "Do NOT prevent others from reaching their fullest potential"; how on earth could a "rational" and "objective" person infer that I meant that it did prevent them?? But I still say (as I said in a piece of that article that you did not quote) that a morality of merely keeping out of others' way makes less of a person than a morality of actively helping. In other words, it prevents YOU from reaching YOUR highest potential (see later in this article for my ideas of highest potential). > I think you're implying that "only this book can tell you the best way, and > by reading it and avoiding all life's dangers and pitfalls, you are 'helped' > to reach your best potential". Even if you accept the erroneous notion that > this book contains only "best ways", one gets the most out of life by living > and learning. If I accepted a list of proscriptions as the "best ways", and > avoided any other possibilities open to me, how have I grown? What have I > learned? What use has my life been? It is ONLY through having as many possi- > bilities open to you as possible, and learning that choosing from among them > and living them through, AND even MAKING MISTAKES that your life is maximally > enhanced. I mentioned in a letter to you that I actually read the Bible infrequently. It is true that I, personally, do have an aversion (out of which I am only gradually growing) to life's dangers; and it is probably true that a great many people (but by no means all) operating under the name of Christian use it as an "opiate", an escape from the darkness of life. As I have commented before, many times, apparently to deaf ears on your end, the Bible was written not just as proscriptions, but as a guide to positive ways to act. I am beginning to deal with the fact that acting in these positive ways is no guarantee that you won't get hurt; but where the Bible does come down hard on things is when they are things whereby you are only working against your own (and/or others') fullest personhood -- i.e., the Bible does, in a sense, "proscribe" hurting yourself and others, but not in the sense of legally forbidding them. You're still free to choose any possibilities, and if you make a mistake, you will learn, often painfully; but why do you insist on ignoring the experience and wisdom of those who have fallen into some of life's pitfalls and have lovingly left this guidebook to show others how not to fall in? Now mind you, there's a big difference between "dangers" and "pitfalls". The most cursory examination of the Bible would show that being a Christian does not free you from danger, and that in fact, the more dedicated a Christian you are, the more likely you are to take all sorts of risks and often suffer for them -- because you are working toward a better goal than merely avoiding temporal suffering. Just look at what happened to Paul. >> I'm not saying [Rich's non-interference morality] is bad at all; it's >> certainly better than a lot of societal arrangements which exist in the >> world. I'm just saying it's not the best. A society of love would beat >> a society of non-interference any day, and be a lot more joyous (because a >> lot less self-conscious) into the bargain. > But how do you MAKE people love each other? By force? By edict? By > indoctrination? The beauty of the non-interference system is that there is > little or no need for actual force; common sense is your MOTIVATION for living > up to that morality: if you do interfere, you're likely to get in trouble > with those you interfere with. The "society of love" is an unrealistic > concept, because unrequited altruistic love is not in everyone's self > interest, and thus anyone who sees through this just doesn't bother. Where did you get the idea that I was advocating MAKING people love each other? People come to love each other because they have been loved. People love each other when they are "not conformed to this world, but ... transformed by the renewing of [their] mind." The beauty of the love system is that force is unnecessary; love is your motivation. Your instance of "common sense" above sounds a lot like fear; and perfect love throws out fear. The "society of love" I was referring to was a world of REQUITED altruistic love. Jesus came to bring abundant life, and he spoke of the disciples' joy being full. In other words, the ideal person is one who has his own needs so abundantly met (partially because he has a clear knowledge of what his real needs are) that he is enabled not to worry about himself any more, but can overflow with love toward others. [Generic pronouns in preceding sentence, of course.] The ideal society is one where everyone is like this. Chances of reaching that on earth aren't the biggest; but it is more to our own benefit to be overflowing so much that we are enabled to give to all who cross our path, that we don't have to worry about ourselves any more -- to be overflowing, rather than to be always concerned only with our own self-interest (which implies that our self-interest has not been satisfied). This overflowing person is my idea of a person's highest potential (as above); what's yours? >> Eventually, none of us will get out of life alive, no matter >> how much or little others interfere with us.) > I can't think of too much we can do about this, which is precisely why we > try to maximize our lives. This could make for an interesting (and practically applicable) discussion: Why should we try to maximize our lives, if we're going to die? Particularly is this question apposite for those who don't believe there's anything after death. If you're just going to die and rot, why live? (This is not an attack; I'm genuinely curious to know your answer.) >> Biblical Christianity is closer to this idea: "So what if I am hurt? It's >> not forever." and even "So what if I die? It's not forever." > But, of course, that's putting the cart before the horse. (Why am I > using that phrase so much lately?) You don't want to be hurt, you seek > an extension to life, so you make one up. No, no! The point of Biblical Christianity is that you are free to get hurt and even to die. It is not, alas, a means to avoid hurt. (Mind explaining exactly what's the cart and what's the horse in your favorite cliche?) -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq .signature temporarily out of service
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/10/85)
>> It simply isn't valid to say that "ALL humans should >> cooperate" because "MOST humans want to cooperate"; morality simply isn't >> a ratification of group will. >It isn't? Oh, yes, that's right, if you've got that cart (god) before your >horse (morality). There's no requirement that a morality have some universal >appeal, is there. Only if you presuppose god does that apply, and certainly >not all of us have the need to do that. What morality needs is a common >sense basis for believing that it is in your interest to stick to it, and >that there are good reasons for having it. Fini. Sorry, Rich, but you can have universal morality on your own terms. (it's unknowable, but hey.) You seem to have this obsession with Gods these days... Leading to the other article.... >But if he has any common sense, he knows that he will not maximize his good >by engaging in such behavior in a society that will suppress him for doing >so. Ultimate, longterm maximization. Not quick and dirty gratification >that will result in minimizing good (and perhaps maximizing retribution) >in the long run. Do you have common sense, Charley? I thought so. That's not true, though, if he decides that he CAN thwart society. It should be hardly necessary to observe that 'common sense' means "It's obvious to me," i.e., that Rich's statement is only his opinion, and not a fact. > There is really no such thing as granting of rights. >Within the limits of physical practicality, I am essentially free to do >anything I might desire. There is no "granting" of these rights. You've >got them. There are only two ways to take them away: 1) force or threat >of physical force, 2) by agreement evolving from cooperation. OR by a >combination of both. When you belong to a community/society, you get certain >benefits from membership. In return, to allow the society to continue >performing its function and (hopefully) maximizing benefits, you agree to >limit your rights. You are NOT free to do the things restricted by the >society. Given this, what basis could a society have to limit rights beyond >the minimal restrictions possible: non-interference? I can't think of >any. Can the society tell people how or when to have lunch? Sex? Take >showers? Wait a minute, you're saying, it could get to the point where >your not taking showers (or generally keeping your surroundings clean) >affects your neighbors? There you go! The point of interference. You are undermining yourself severely here, not least because the third sentence in the paragraph posits free will. You erroneously imply that societies form of free association, which they do not. Most people join society through birth. It is therefore incorrect to assume that some sort of implicit contractual arrangement exists. You also speak of the purpose of a society. Consider then a monastery. It exists due to free choice. It has a well-stated purpose. How do you propose to criticize its choice of rules? Conversely, take a child born in an isolated village. Can it truly be said that its participation in society in any way involves in consent? >> Therefore, I need pay no attention to your feeble protestations about >> rights. >You do if you live in the same society that I do. And what's more, these >are not "feeble protestations about rights", they are substantive arguments >against limitations of rights. But I DO live in the same society-- and it does not subscribe to your system. It therefore has every right to suppress you, because you are immoral. NOW do you see the problem? >Charles, I don't give a flying petunia whether you "value" my survival or >not. The fact is that each person does, and the world does not revolve >around your egocentric "values". It is the fact that EACH of us values >survival that encourages us to cooperate. Whether or not you altruistically >or otherwise value my survival is irrelevant to me. Except in that you >should recall the words of Pastor Niemoller, who (at first) didn't value the >survival of Jews, and homosexuals, and Communists, and Catholics, and so on. >If that's not basis enough for valuing other people's survival (the fact that >you are just as vulnerable to what happens to the other guy), then I have >wonder about whether you DO have common sense... Bullshit, Rich. All you could mean by that is that you do. People value their own survival and well-being, by and large. But some don't, and many people value their own life first. People acquire power, so that they can ensure their own position. With one breath you deny evil in the world, with the next you say it doesn't matter, and with the third you accuse me of all of it. You say that society determines morality by consensus, yet you assert a morality which this society does not believe in. Would you care to resolve a few of these contradictions? C Wingate
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/12/85)
>>> It simply isn't valid to say that "ALL humans should >>>cooperate" because "MOST humans want to cooperate"; morality simply isn't >>>a ratification of group will. >>It isn't? Oh, yes, that's right, if you've got that cart (god) before your >>horse (morality). There's no requirement that a morality have some universal >>appeal, is there. Only if you presuppose god does that apply, and certainly >>not all of us have the need to do that. What morality needs is a common >>sense basis for believing that it is in your interest to stick to it, and >>that there are good reasons for having it. Fini. > Sorry, Rich, but you can have universal morality on your own terms. (it's > unknowable, but hey.) You seem to have this obsession with Gods these > days... Could you explain this in English? What does this have to do with what I said? > Leading to the other article.... >>But if he has any common sense, he knows that he will not maximize his good >>by engaging in such behavior in a society that will suppress him for doing >>so. Ultimate, longterm maximization. Not quick and dirty gratification >>that will result in minimizing good (and perhaps maximizing retribution) >>in the long run. Do you have common sense, Charley? I thought so. > That's not true, though, if he decides that he CAN thwart society. It > should be hardly necessary to observe that 'common sense' means "It's obvious > to me," i.e., that Rich's statement is only his opinion, and not a fact. And the opinion of most thinking people with common sense. What sort of people run around trying to "thwart" society? How many? How well have they been adapting to the society and its people? I guess I thought wrong. >> There is really no such thing as granting of rights. >>Within the limits of physical practicality, I am essentially free to do >>anything I might desire. There is no "granting" of these rights. You've >>got them. There are only two ways to take them away: 1) force or threat >>of physical force, 2) by agreement evolving from cooperation. OR by a >>combination of both. When you belong to a community/society, you get certain >>benefits from membership. In return, to allow the society to continue >>performing its function and (hopefully) maximizing benefits, you agree to >>limit your rights. You are NOT free to do the things restricted by the >>society. Given this, what basis could a society have to limit rights beyond >>the minimal restrictions possible: non-interference? I can't think of >>any. Can the society tell people how or when to have lunch? Sex? Take >>showers? Wait a minute, you're saying, it could get to the point where >>your not taking showers (or generally keeping your surroundings clean) >>affects your neighbors? There you go! The point of interference. > You are undermining yourself severely here, not least because the third > sentence in the paragraph posits free will. Nice assertion. Where and how did I do that? Since the desires are not acquired "freely", by the force of a will, but by the experiences you have and learn through, no positing at all. > You erroneously imply that > societies form of free association, which they do not. Most people join > society through birth. It is therefore incorrect to assume that some sort > of implicit contractual arrangement exists. You mean like with a deity in a religious morality? > You also speak of the purpose of > a society. Consider then a monastery. It exists due to free choice. It has > a well-stated purpose. How do you propose to criticize its choice of rules? I don't. They seem to have very similar rules to the ones I propose as their basis. Of course, they have additional requirements of discipline. Binding on the monks who come there by choice. > Conversely, take a child born in an isolated village. Can it truly be said > that its participation in society in any way involves in consent? Precisely the reason why a societal morality must be open enough to take into account the needs of all its members. Of course, the child is free to leave upon adulthood. >>>Therefore, I need pay no attention to your feeble protestations about >>>rights. >>You do if you live in the same society that I do. And what's more, these >>are not "feeble protestations about rights", they are substantive arguments >>against limitations of rights. > But I DO live in the same society-- and it does not subscribe to your system. > It therefore has every right to suppress you, because you are immoral. NOW > do you see the problem? Yes, let's convince the people in power to change the morality to a more acceptable one for all people. Not interested? Never mind. >>Charles, I don't give a flying petunia whether you "value" my survival or >>not. The fact is that each person does, and the world does not revolve >>around your egocentric "values". It is the fact that EACH of us values >>survival that encourages us to cooperate. Whether or not you altruistically >>or otherwise value my survival is irrelevant to me. Except in that you >>should recall the words of Pastor Niemoller, who (at first) didn't value the >>survival of Jews, and homosexuals, and Communists, and Catholics, and so on. >>If that's not basis enough for valuing other people's survival (the fact that >>you are just as vulnerable to what happens to the other guy), then I have >>wonder about whether you DO have common sense... > Bullshit, Rich. All you could mean by that is that you do. All I "could" mean? In your eyes? > People value > their own survival and well-being, by and large. But some don't, and many > people value their own life first. People acquire power, so that they can > ensure their own position. With one breath you deny evil in the world, with > the next you say it doesn't matter, and with the third you accuse me of all > of it. You say that society determines morality by consensus, yet you assert > a morality which this society does not believe in. Would you care to > resolve a few of these contradictions? One contradiction is your saying that I "deny evil in the world". I never said anything of that nature, so I wonder what you are talking about. If people do not have this level of common sense, it is precisely because those who HAVE acquired the power have kept it from them, manipulating them to think along their lines, for their ends. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/18/85)
[By the way, I did misread your "Do not prevent". Too many negatives there.] > But I still say (as I said in a piece of that > article that you did not quote) that a morality of merely keeping out of > others' way makes less of a person than a morality of actively helping. > In other words, it prevents YOU from reaching YOUR highest potential (see > later in this article for my ideas of highest potential). And I still say that the only way you can set up a societal morality that has everyone actively helping is to force everyone to actively help. As a personal morality, it is fine. In fact, it is an outgrowth of rationally knowing that helping others will eventually help you in the long run, so again even this is based in selfishness (which you of course consider "bad"). But you cannot get everyone to participate in such active helping to the same degree that you choose to participate. The only way to do so is to force everyone to help. (Which is, in a way, what taxation is all about: you contribute to the development of society at large to your advantage---tell that to the libertarians.) Also, you claim unilaterally that a person's fullest potential can only be reached by helping others, and that is just assuming your conclusion. A person's potential need not solely be rooted in his/her relationship to others in this manner. >>I think you're implying that "only this book can tell you the best way, and >>by reading it and avoiding all life's dangers and pitfalls, you are 'helped' >>to reach your best potential". Even if you accept the erroneous notion that >>this book contains only "best ways", one gets the most out of life by living >>and learning. If I accepted a list of proscriptions as the "best ways", and >>avoided any other possibilities open to me, how have I grown? What have I >>learned? What use has my life been? It is ONLY through having as many possi- >>bilities open to you as possible, and learning that choosing from among them >>and living them through, AND even MAKING MISTAKES that your life is maximally >>enhanced. > I mentioned in a letter to you that I actually read the Bible infrequently. > It is true that I, personally, do have an aversion (out of which I am only > gradually growing) to life's dangers; and it is probably true that a great > many people (but by no means all) operating under the name of Christian use > it as an "opiate", an escape from the darkness of life. As I have commented > before, many times, apparently to deaf ears on your end, the Bible was > written not just as proscriptions, but as a guide to positive ways to act. You can choose to interpret "do only these things and not those because I say so" as "positive" in a Newspeak sort of way, but that's just one personal opinion. > I am beginning to deal with the fact that acting in these positive ways is > no guarantee that you won't get hurt; but where the Bible does come down > hard on things is when they are things whereby you are only working against > your own (and/or others') fullest personhood -- i.e., the Bible does, in a > sense, "proscribe" hurting yourself and others, but not in the sense of > legally forbidding them. You're still free to choose any possibilities, > and if you make a mistake, you will learn, often painfully; but why do you > insist on ignoring the experience and wisdom of those who have fallen into > some of life's pitfalls and have lovingly left this guidebook to show others > how not to fall in? First, it's apparent that you haven't come that far away from not seeking guarantees against getting hurt, as you yourself have said. Second, why does "the experience and wisdom" of a book necesarily apply to you? You are an individual human being, with different needs from everyone else. You may not like that, you may rather that you fit into some preset mold so that you can have an ordered planned life, but it ain't so. When this book says things that apply to the general experience of human beings (e.g., if it said "don't jump off a building because you'll fall and die"), that's very different from saying "this is what you should do because we say so", regarding things like sexuality or other matters of personal taste and action. Because such things involving personal choice cannot be carved in stone for the whole human race, no matter how much you would like for that to be so. >>>I'm not saying [Rich's non-interference morality] is bad at all; it's >>>certainly better than a lot of societal arrangements which exist in the >>>world. I'm just saying it's not the best. A society of love would beat >>>a society of non-interference any day, and be a lot more joyous (because a >>>lot less self-conscious) into the bargain. >>But how do you MAKE people love each other? By force? By edict? By >>indoctrination? The beauty of the non-interference system is that there is >>little or no need for actual force; common sense is your MOTIVATION for living >>up to that morality: if you do interfere, you're likely to get in trouble >>with those you interfere with. The "society of love" is an unrealistic >>concept, because unrequited altruistic love is not in everyone's self >>interest, and thus anyone who sees through this just doesn't bother. > Where did you get the idea that I was advocating MAKING people love each > other? People come to love each other because they have been loved. Ah, then you agree that there's no such thing as "unconditional" love. > People love each other when they are "not conformed to this world, but ... > transformed by the renewing of [their] mind." The beauty of the love system > is that force is unnecessary; love is your motivation. And if you choose not to love, then what? What makes a person follow this code? Only a code where a thinking person can see a good reason for following it is going to sustain itself. Since even so-called atruistic love is selfish in the long term, that may be a reason to offer love, but it doesn't necessarily apply in all situations. In fact, a sort of "self-actualized" love level in a relationship might occur when you feel so sure that the other person will return your love that you give it freely. You even accept minor fluctuations in mood and action in the other person because you know they really love you in the long term. Of course, there's the other side of the coin: some people see the other person reaching this level of acceptance and uses it against him/her, as if to say "now I've got you, I can act the way I really feel and not bothering offering you love in order to get it". All too often, the point where this happens is within the first few years after the wedding day. > Your instance of "common sense" above sounds a lot like fear; and perfect > love throws out fear. Yes, common sense often involves fear: if you don't do this, something bad will happen. I don't understand why you judge that so negatively. As for "perfect love", what you call unconditional love, yes, that would "throw out fear". If you could get the other person to buy into it. And the only way you can do that is the way I described above: to get the other person to accept you enough that they know so well that you love them that they offer love in return freely, and without concern about "getting something back on their investment". Where one person breaks this faith chain, thinking that "now he/she loves me completely, I can get away with murder" or "... I no longer have to 'work' to offer love to him/her", your perfect love becomes very imperfect indeed. As the Residents sang "There's one thing I must tell you, there's one thing I must say, the only really perfect love IS ONE THAT GETS AWAY". (The CAPS aren't for emphasis, that's just where the deep basso voice comes in.) > The "society of love" I was referring to was a world of REQUITED > altruistic love. Jesus came to bring abundant life, and he spoke of the > disciples' joy being full. In other words, the ideal person is one who > has his own needs so abundantly met (partially because he has a clear > knowledge of what his real needs are) that he is enabled not to worry about > himself any more, but can overflow with love toward others. [Generic > pronouns in preceding sentence, of course.] The ideal society is one where > everyone is like this. Chances of reaching that on earth aren't the biggest; You've got it!! The only way to achieve it is to FORCE everyone to love everybody else the way you describe. (The way they do in California, where insensitivity is a capital crime, but where somehow the assholes use this to their advantage. :-) I'm glad you admit that. Now, let's concentrate on moral systems that CAN and should be implemented here on earth. > but it is more to our own benefit to be overflowing so much that we are > enabled to give to all who cross our path, that we don't have to worry about > ourselves any more -- to be overflowing, rather than to be always concerned > only with our own self-interest (which implies that our self-interest has > not been satisfied). This overflowing person is my idea of a person's > highest potential (as above); what's yours? I already said that it's different from person to person, since each of us are individuals. Why must you insist that there is one "best" thing for everybody, just because you seem to want that to be so? >>>Eventually, none of us will get out of life alive, no matter >>>how much or little others interfere with us.) >>I can't think of too much we can do about this, which is precisely why we >>try to maximize our lives. > This could make for an interesting (and practically applicable) discussion: > Why should we try to maximize our lives, if we're going to die? Particularly > is this question apposite for those who don't believe there's anything after > death. If you're just going to die and rot, why live? (This is not an > attack; I'm genuinely curious to know your answer.) Just as I have been curious to know why this sort of question makes you believe that because you ask this question there thus must be a life after death? Without which, you would see no point in living. First off, Jeff, death is a very painful experience, and I have no desire to go through it, though I know that someday I will. Thus, I seek to maximize my pleasure in life in such a way as to enjoy life while I can. Note that I do this in a rational fashion: I don't kill and maim (not that such things would give me pleasure in any case), because I know that doing so will provoke retribution (not from a god but) from other people. Thus, even if I wanted to do something that would hurt and interfere with other people, I don't do it, because doing so will actually DECREASE my pleasure and my chances at life. Second, quite simply, I do get pleasure out of living. I do things that I enjoy, that bring me pleasure, that are within the bounds of non-interference. And even in times of displeasure or even depression, I know that there are enough good things in life that make it worthwhile. The fact that YOU may see no point in living in this world if there is not an afterlife is just your opinion. Religious beliefs like this were formulated to keep people (who had little or no hope of achieving anything) alive. "Listen, peasants, yes, your life may be miserable, and it may be awful working for the master, but realize that by doing this (heh heh) you get this great afterlife for being good." The fact that many other people see plenty of reason to live without any belief in an afterlife tells us that your beliefs are not absolutes for all. >>>Biblical Christianity is closer to this idea: "So what if I am hurt? It's >>>not forever." and even "So what if I die? It's not forever." >>But, of course, that's putting the cart before the horse. (Why am I >>using that phrase so much lately?) You don't want to be hurt, you seek >>an extension to life, so you make one up. > No, no! The point of Biblical Christianity is that you are free to get > hurt and even to die. It is not, alas, a means to avoid hurt. (Mind > explaining exactly what's the cart and what's the horse in your favorite > cliche?) The cart is afterlife. The horse is life. You say "I don't have to worry about being hurt or dying in this life because god offers an afterlife." I ask "How do you know this?" And you respond "Because otherwise there wouldn't be any point in living." Yes, I've been overusing that cliche lately. -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr