pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/02/86)
In article <217@csustan.UUCP> smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: >>In article <> raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes: >>>>[...some xtian propaganda saying we should all be "Good Samaritans"...] > >This is called begging the question. You assume that for some reason there >is something intrinsically good about treating other people as equals and >then say, "Now wouldn't it be nice if people really did this." > >There are real and good _reasons_ for treating with others as equals; they >also have nothing to do with one or another religion. There is the pragmatic >reason that people will have nothing to do with you if you do not act as if >they are worth something. There is the internal reason that quite often it >simply *feels good* to be polite/nice/helpful to others. If you don't want >to feel good, and don't care to interact with society, there is nothing at >all _wrong_ with being an obnoxious idiot; just don't act like one and >expect people to care to associate with you. One wonders why we need laws to help protect people from one another if it is as simple as you imply. Are your reasons really good enough to convinces the thief or the murderer that he shouldn't steal or kill? If *they* don't want to feel good (assuming their crimes really make them feel bad), and don't care to "interact with society", is there nothing at all wrong with stealing and killing? Take less extreme examples of unequal treatment and the same principle applies. We still see the need for laws to insure that the possibility of reward for such behavior is diminished to the point where people will be less tempted to indulge in it (e.g. the proposed federal ERA is such a law). Without these added restraints, it seems fairly likely to me that negative social consequences of wrong actions would lack the necessary intensity and frequency to prove practical as a deterrent. In other words, if one has the power to avoid the consequences you state or considers them to be trivial in comparison to the rewards she seeks for her anti-social behavior, your "pragmatic reasons" for calling such behavior wrong lose all their weight. Our society does not operate on pure pragmatism where morality is concerned. We "hedge our bets" with laws that raise the stakes for wrong behavior. >I have no respect for people who argue that something is right (or wrong) >because "the Bible says so." > \scott Everyone appeals to an authority (either consciously or not) in exercising their moral beliefs (I suspect that, deeper down, you are "begging some questions" too). To imply that unsociable behavior is naturally and of necessity "wrong" because of its consequences alone (having nothing to do with beliefs based on an accepted--tacit or otherwise--authority) is being naive. I think that a society that relied purely on the natural consequences of behavior as a deterrent to "wrong" behavior would not last long. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) (10/03/86)
> I think that a society that relied purely on the natural >consequences of behavior as a deterrent to "wrong" behavior would not >last long. >-- > >Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd Since, we have no examples of such a society, it is difficult to know whether such a society would last or not. Seek not to rule the people with laws For they will only seek to remain out of prison and avoid doing wrong What is more, the will not become virtuous. Seek, rather, to guide the people by virtuos example. For then, the people will follow your example and become virtuos themselves Kung Fu-Tzu (aka Confucius) -- Joel Rives gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr { * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ ^ }-------{ * } There is no place to seek the mind; It is like the footprints of the birds in the sky. { * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }--------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }
smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) (10/03/86)
In article <1610@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: < In article <> I write: < There are real and good _reasons_ for treating with others as equals; they < also have nothing to do with one or another religion. There is the pragmatic < reason that people will have nothing to do with you if you do not act as if < they are worth something. There is the internal reason that quite often it < simply *feels good* to be polite/nice/helpful to others. If you don't want < to feel good, and don't care to interact with society, there is nothing at < all _wrong_ with being an obnoxious idiot; just don't act like one and < expect people to care to associate with you. > >One wonders why we need laws to help protect people from one another if >it is as simple as you imply. Are your reasons really good enough to >convinces the thief or the murderer that he shouldn't steal or kill? If >*they* don't want to feel good (assuming their crimes really make them >feel bad), and don't care to "interact with society", is there nothing >at all wrong with stealing and killing? Stealing and killing is by definition an interaction with society. Other people _are_ society. You can't steal from yourself, and I see nothing wrong about no-strings-attached suicide. If you steal and/or kill, you have interacted with society in a negative manner; as a member of one society, I have no problem with removing the "irritation" (through rehabilitation, incarceration, or capital punishment). Laws are the emobodiment of a social contract; violations of the terms of the contract result in expulsion from society. Laws do not equal ethics. >In other words, if one has the power to avoid >the consequences you state or considers them to be trivial in comparison to >the rewards she seeks for her anti-social behavior, your "pragmatic reasons" >for calling such behavior wrong lose all their weight. I never called anti-social behavior wrong. I simply said that for there exist pragmatic reasons for behaving in a manner that will ease your interactions with society. If someone truly has the power and the desire to behave in any way they desire without risking negative consequences, I say two things: 1) this person is not interacting with any other people in manners that they find undesirable; or 2) we're talking about the ruler of the whole world here... If I can get away with something, and the value to me of whatever I gain is more than the value of lost societal interaction (not to mention the fact that some social mechanism may act to capture and "punish" me), then I have a valid reason for doing as I please. Right and wrong do not exist apart from human interactions. >Our society does not operate on pure pragmatism where morality is concerned. >We "hedge our bets" with laws that raise the stakes for wrong behavior. But why do people _obey_ the laws? < I have no respect for people who argue that something is right (or wrong) < because "the Bible says so." > >Everyone appeals to an authority (either consciously or not) in exercising >their moral beliefs (I suspect that, deeper down, you are "begging some >questions" too). To imply that unsociable behavior is naturally >and of necessity "wrong" because of its consequences alone (having nothing >to do with beliefs based on an accepted--tacit or otherwise--authority) is >being naive. I think that a society that relied purely on the natural >consequences of behavior as a deterrent to "wrong" behavior would not >last long. >-- >Paul Dubuc I don't particularly like the idea of a society of "pure consequentialists". I also don't like a society based on "god's laws". I would rather that people behaved respectably toward each other because each person felt that it was the best thing to do. I treat those around me as equals because I want the same treatment for myself. That is the ultimate pragmatism - "Don't tread on my prerogatives, and I'll leave yours alone." \scott -- Scott Hazen Mueller lll-crg.arpa!csustan!smdev City of Turlock work: (209) 668-5590 -or- 5628 901 South Walnut Avenue home: (209) 527-1203 Turlock, CA 95380 <Insert pithy saying here...>
tron@fluke.UUCP (10/07/86)
Scott writes; >>There is the internal reason that quite often it >>simply *feels good* to be polite/nice/helpful to others. If you don't want >>to feel good, and don't care to interact with society, there is nothing at >>all _wrong_ with being an obnoxious idiot; just don't act like one and >>expect people to care to associate with you. > Paul writes; >...restraints, it seems fairly likely to me that negative social consequences >of wrong actions would lack the necessary intensity and frequency to prove >practical as a deterrent. In other words, if one has the power to avoid >the consequences you state or considers them to be trivial in comparison to >the rewards she seeks for her anti-social behavior, your "pragmatic reasons" >for calling such behavior wrong lose all their weight. > >Our society does not operate on pure pragmatism where morality is concerned. >We "hedge our bets" with laws that raise the stakes for wrong behavior. Paul, you seem to be ignoring the idea of positive reinforcement. I thought it was well accepted that positive reinforcement works decidedly better than negative reinforcement. It is possible that our society (or any) is too much into "get what you can" to accept positive reinforcement as a means of insuring proper behaviour, but this is a pragmatic consequence. Peter B