mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
In article <1225@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? [WINGATE] >Because it benefits you. Roads, telecommunications, all these real marvey >type things. Could you create and maintain them yourself? Could you >ever in your wildest dreams be "self-sufficient". The interdependence of >humans and the benefits of cooperation behoove to cooperate or not partake >of the fruits of the cooperation. Would it not be even more advantageous to suck off the benefits of other people's cooperation? >> It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best >> I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. Now, >> perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some >> empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this >> supposed human nature should be catered to. >> I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively >> with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings >> which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. And besides, you >> must also deal with the existentialist challenge: is there really any >> essential human nature? >On the contrary, one's immediate natural instincts lead one to immediate >gratification type actions, which in a world with other people will most >likely hurt you in the long run. That's one thing humanity has (at least >partially) learned over thousands of years, and the reason why such societies >are built. The notions have nothing to do wih "human nature", but rather >with a system that provides maximal benefits. Benefits to whom? To the rulers! The moral imperative they stress is that everyone should cooperate with them! There is, for every society, a group of people whose interests demand the subversion or destruction of society. Rich's argument, from their point of view, justifies this destruction, because from their point of view, they are NOT maximizing their benefits. Charley WIngate umcp-cs!mangoe "Do you know what this means? It means this damn thing doesn't work at all!"
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
[followups to net.philosophy please] In article <392@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >This is not just an assertion on Rich's part. There is empirical evidence >demonstrating the desirability of freedom, and the desirability of >increasing one's chances of survival. Look at any region of the world where >refugees are; They are fleeing totalitarian societies, famine, and >war. This fact is all that is needed to justify Rich's point of view, and >consequently show that freedom etc is of some value. But this only presents a problem if you accept the position that all lives are of equal value, and perhaps many others as well. This simply is not universally accepted. It isn't even clear that a majority truly accept it. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "So I took their plutonium and gave them a shiny bomb casing full of used pinball machine parts."
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/22/85)
[followups to net.philosophy please] In article <1251@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> It's not obvious to me that I would benefit directly from improving >> society. Can you demonsrate the connection? Depending on the person >> involved, one might feel that there is more direct benefit to be gained >> by cheating and committing crimes. He may just have a different opinion >> about the laws that would prevent him than most of us do. [DUBUC] >Short term you may see a benefit, but when the society at large enforces >its rights to protection against your interference, it won't be so much >of a benefit. An intelligent adult human would see that such interference >will come back to haunt, and since there are benefits associated with >cooperation, he might just cooperate. I don't think that's so. Many people seem to operate on the expectation that they can thwart society forever, or that they don't care about the sanctions imposed. Some seem to succeed in thwarting society all their lives. And if you don't care about the long run, why worry? >> It's simple until you attempt the necessary task of defining what >> constitutes harm. You seem to be assuming some definition. What is it? >> You might have to tell us why that definition should be catered to >> in that case. >Let's start with physical harm to one's person, one's loved one's persons, >one's property, and add further interference in the exercise of personal >rights. Was there anything you wanted to add or subtract? Ah, but it makes all the difference in the world what those personal rights are, and besides, there's no guarantee that these rights don't conflict at times. What then? >> Charley's point might be to ask you, "Why should I value democracy?" >1) Because it works. 2) Because it happens to be the system of this >society (or a variant of it) and as the "patriots" say: "If you don't >like its principles, you can get out!" (Though I doubt many of THAT >breed of "patriot" that says such things could spell 'principle'.) >3) Because, at its root, it seeks to provide maximal freedom and minimal >restriction and interference. 4) As Churchill said, it's the worst >form of government we have, except for all the others. Suprise! I even agree with these reasons (mostly). But the chain of reasoning is going the wrong way. Reinhold Neibuhr supported democracy, for precisely the same reasons, but he got there from christianity. The principles and and the system are quite distinct. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Give me a milk. Chocolate."
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/85)
>>>Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? [WINGATE] >>Because it benefits you. Roads, telecommunications, all these real marvey >>type things. Could you create and maintain them yourself? Could you >>ever in your wildest dreams be "self-sufficient". The interdependence of >>humans and the benefits of cooperation behoove to cooperate or not partake >>of the fruits of the cooperation. [ROSEN] > Would it not be even more advantageous to suck off the benefits of other > people's cooperation? [WINGATE] Not if they don't let you. That would be stealing, taking the property of other people without their consent, no? >>On the contrary, one's immediate natural instincts lead one to immediate >>gratification type actions, which in a world with other people will most >>likely hurt you in the long run. That's one thing humanity has (at least >>partially) learned over thousands of years, and the reason why such societies >>are built. The notions have nothing to do wih "human nature", but rather >>with a system that provides maximal benefits. > Benefits to whom? To the rulers! The moral imperative they stress is that > everyone should cooperate with them! There is, for every society, a group > of people whose interests demand the subversion or destruction of society. > Rich's argument, from their point of view, justifies this destruction, > because from their point of view, they are NOT maximizing their benefits. So let's have a society where everyone is the rulers! (I'm not sure where you get the notion that rulers seek the destruction of their society. On the contrary, they seek to make it last as long as possible to maximze their benefits at other people's expense. In a maximal tolerance morality, there is no group at whose expense all this is gained: the effort is dispersed, the benefits are maximized. Or are you insisting that every society MUST have and under-group?) -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/85)
>>>It's not obvious to me that I would benefit directly from improving >>>society. Can you demonsrate the connection? Depending on the person >>>involved, one might feel that there is more direct benefit to be gained >>>by cheating and committing crimes. He may just have a different opinion >>>about the laws that would prevent him than most of us do. [DUBUC] >>Short term you may see a benefit, but when the society at large enforces >>its rights to protection against your interference, it won't be so much >>of a benefit. An intelligent adult human would see that such interference >>will come back to haunt, and since there are benefits associated with >>cooperation, he might just cooperate. [ROSEN] > I don't think that's so. Many people seem to operate on the expectation > that they can thwart society forever, or that they don't care about the > sanctions imposed. Some seem to succeed in thwarting society all their > lives. And if you don't care about the long run, why worry? [WINGATE] And if you stay out of the way of the rest of society, who cares? Like our so-called survivalist friends. Unfortunately, such people are not the pantheons of independence they would like us to believe when they snatch what they need from society at large. Doing that, of course, may run counter to the wishes of the society, and ... >>>It's simple until you attempt the necessary task of defining what >>>constitutes harm. You seem to be assuming some definition. What is it? >>>You might have to tell us why that definition should be catered to >>>in that case. >>Let's start with physical harm to one's person, one's loved one's persons, >>one's property, and add further interference in the exercise of personal >>rights. Was there anything you wanted to add or subtract? > Ah, but it makes all the difference in the world what those personal rights > are, and besides, there's no guarantee that these rights don't conflict at > times. What then? I asked for specific things you wanted to add or subtract, not vague generalities! >>>Charley's point might be to ask you, "Why should I value democracy?" >>1) Because it works. 2) Because it happens to be the system of this >>society (or a variant of it) and as the "patriots" say: "If you don't >>like its principles, you can get out!" (Though I doubt many of THAT >>breed of "patriot" that says such things could spell 'principle'.) >>3) Because, at its root, it seeks to provide maximal freedom and minimal >>restriction and interference. 4) As Churchill said, it's the worst >>form of government we have, except for all the others. > Suprise! I even agree with these reasons (mostly). But the chain of > reasoning is going the wrong way. Reinhold Neibuhr supported democracy, for > precisely the same reasons, but he got there from christianity. Ah, the "right" way to go, as opposed to my "wrong" way. > The principles and and the system are quite distinct. We value the system because it upholds the principles. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/85)
>>This is not just an assertion on Rich's part. There is empirical evidence >>demonstrating the desirability of freedom, and the desirability of >>increasing one's chances of survival. Look at any region of the world where >>refugees are; They are fleeing totalitarian societies, famine, and >>war. This fact is all that is needed to justify Rich's point of view, and >>consequently show that freedom etc is of some value. [HOULAHAN] > But this only presents a problem if you accept the position that all lives > are of equal value, and perhaps many others as well. This simply is not > universally accepted. It isn't even clear that a majority truly accept it. > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe What is the basis for the system of beliefs of people who don't value life? How do they justify it? Looks like, as I've said all along, to rid the world of such notions would take a great educational effort teaching people how to think, how to reason, and how to know when some powermongering asshole is forcefitting them into his system of nonsense for his own ends. No one said it would be easy. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr