mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/30/85)
In article <1335@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >As I've said in n+1 other articles, this is only true if you assume (which >you are) that I was seeking to *justify* human survival as an absolute. That >wasn't the question, and I wasn't trying to do so. Such a thing cannot be >done without anthropocentric "special status for humanity" claims such >as those that permeate certain religions. The question was "Why do we >value survival?" >and the answer is "Because we like surviving, because our chemistry is such >that we humans gain pleasure from surviving, and seek to continue to do so". >Sounds objective enough to me. It's not "appealing" to our likes and >dislikes as justification, it's simply stating facts. 1) The reason for asking the survival question in the first place was because Rich seems to think he can construct a moral obligation (whether it is absolute or not) directly out of this principle. 2) Rich's so-called objective facts are far from established. At best they are unproven hypotheses. And the existence of an important minority which does not value survival indicates that, to be called facts, these statements must have percentages attached to them. 3) Comments about certain religions are rather beside the point, since, for the sake of this argument, I have abandoned Christian moral principles. I agree with Rich to a large extent; th problem is, I don't agree with his reasons for believing what he does. Charley Wingate
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/03/85)
>>As I've said in n+1 other articles, this is only true if you assume (which >>you are) that I was seeking to *justify* human survival as an absolute. That >>wasn't the question, and I wasn't trying to do so. Such a thing cannot be >>done without anthropocentric "special status for humanity" claims such >>as those that permeate certain religions. The question was "Why do we >>value survival?" >>and the answer is "Because we like surviving, because our chemistry is such >>that we humans gain pleasure from surviving, and seek to continue to do so". > 1) The reason for asking the survival question in the first place was because > Rich seems to think he can construct a moral obligation (whether it is > absolute or not) directly out of this principle. [WINGATE] World champion word-twister for the third year running... Moral obligation? Where on earth did you see words like that? On the contrary, I have NEVER used words like that or implying that concept. I *did* say that if people chose not to go along with the maximally beneficial minimally restrictive society (why they'd want to is beyond me, but that's "personal taste" for you!) they were certainly "free" to either go off on their own (and not glamm off the society) or face the retribution/wrath when they tried to take from the society that which wasn't theirs. Obligation? > 2) Rich's so-called objective facts are far from established. At best they > are unproven hypotheses. And the existence of an important minority which > does not value survival indicates that, to be called facts, these > statements must have percentages attached to them. My statements certainly apply to human beings at large who value survival. If they do not apply to certain other human beings who do not value survival, that is their business. If they wish to end their lives, I am in no position to stop them (though I might reason with them to convince them otherwise, if possible). If they are like the Jihad-terrorists and do not value survival, and thus rampage through the halls of society (huh?), they will surely face the retribution of that society. > 3) Comments about certain religions are rather beside the point, since, for > the sake of this argument, I have abandoned Christian moral principles. My god, you heathen!!!!!!!! :-) > I agree with Rich to a large extent; th problem is, I don't agree with his > reasons for believing what he does. Then show the flaws in the basis for my reasons, and/or give us YOUR reasons (which I'm fairly sure will get us right back to those Christian moral principles). -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr