rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/22/85)
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. > >>>Hardly. Chances of survival, overall longterm benefits, life in general, > >>>are optimized by cooperation. Cooperation, and the maximal freedom and > >>>benefit for all, are optimized by non-interference. [ROSEN] > > To which Charley Wingate (among others) replied: > >> Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized > >> benefits? > > 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". > Because we like them. Because we *like* them? Yes, 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? > Pro......FOUND!! Paul's new buzzword for what happens when someone states something so obvious that he apparently has never considered. Rather than think about this obvious thing, he belittles the speaker with a "pro...found". Have I got it right? > This is no more than the sanctification of desire. Instead of "might > makes right", Rich says we should follow "like makes right". 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? > Any three-year-old could tell you that. 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. :-? > I think I will stop reading Rich's articles, if that's what it boils > down to... Oh dear, my life is shattered. Do YOU have a "better" justification for wanting survival? Please, let's hear it, seriously! -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (07/25/85)
Yo, Rich, you missed another of Dubois's fallacies. He belittles you for basing your reasons for being moral on your likes and dislikes (specifically your like of survival). But what is Dubois's reason for accepting Christian morality? Because he believes he'll go to Heaven if he does and to Hell if he doesn't, that's why! Why would he prefer Heaven to Hell? Because he dislikes pain. He ... DISLIKES it? HE DISLIKES IT! PRO---FOUND!! If that's what it boils down to, let's all stop reading Dubois's articles. The level of sophistry in this group is really amazing at times.... -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/26/85)
In article <488@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >Yo, Rich, you missed another of Dubois's fallacies. He belittles you for >basing your reasons for being moral on your likes and dislikes (specifically >your like of survival). But what is Dubois's reason for accepting Christian >morality? Because he believes he'll go to Heaven if he does and to Hell if >he doesn't, that's why! Why would he prefer Heaven to Hell? >Because he dislikes pain. He ... DISLIKES it? HE DISLIKES IT! >PRO---FOUND!! If that's what it boils down to, let's all stop reading >Dubois's articles. Wrongo. It isn't Paul, after all, that is claiming total objectivity. If this sinks his argument, then it sinks Rich's all the more, since Rich is denying the validity of appealing to intuition and feelings. 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) (07/26/85)
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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/27/85)
> Wrongo. It isn't Paul, after all, that is claiming total objectivity. If > this sinks his argument, then it sinks Rich's all the more, since Rich is > denying the validity of appealing to intuition and feelings. [WINGATE] 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. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen 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
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) (08/08/85)
>>>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
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