Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Challenge to Humanist/Materialists
Message-ID: <504@opus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-May-84 00:18:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.504
Posted: Mon May 21 00:18:50 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 23-May-84 09:16:07 EDT
References: <779@akgua.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 48

A few responses, but not complete...

>Question #1) Since man is purely a product of his genes and his
>             environment, on what basis is the statement
>	     "I ought..." distinguishable from "I itch.." ?
In one sense, not very much, nor need it be.  However, the matter of
"ought" is a lot harder to learn than "itch".  Genetics makes us what we
are, then we get dropped into the environment.  If the environment causes
an irritation of the skin, we itch; recognizing the situation and
identifying it with previous learning says "so, scratch" and we do.
Similarly, identifying ethical situaitions (for example) we have
encountered before elicits the "I ought" response.  [I've tried to take
Bob's words as I think he meant them; I don't want to deal with "I ought to
scratch" and semantic quibbles.]

>Humanist documents and literature I have read extol the virtues
>of individual freedom of choice and situational ethics that
>promote the idea that you determine what is right for you
>on a case by case basis.
Here, I think Humanism is misunderstood.  Situational ethics is not (or
should not be:-) equal to a "wing it" approach.  It simply gives you the
right/responsibility to think about what you are doing rather than reacting
according to a strict code of predetermined action.  Consider the preceding
paragraph.  If the situation is "I itch", the response is "Scratch" - BUT
that doesn't work if the source of the itch is poison ivy.  How do you
know?  Learning and experience.  I think that the real point of situational
ethics is that you have to be careful when applying your ethical code -
make SURE it really applies.
I have seen misinterpretations of situational ethics used as an excuse for
people to do whatever they want - I think that may be what bothers Bob, and
it bothers me too; I don't buy it a bit.

>Have I received a biased view of Humanism, in particular, since I
>get the impression that it is extremely ME oriented ?
If you have that impression, you have indeed received a biased view of
humanism.

>Humanism seems to me to represent the best efforts of mankind
>to deify itself.  Personally, selfishness has never been good
>for me or anyone I've affected when I made it a full time pursuit.
My feeling is that this is a clash of theistic thinking with humanism.  Are
you, perhaps, looking at Humanism and saying, "Where's the deity?"  There
isn't one.  Seriously, Humanism can as easily be condemned as condemning
all of humanity to suffer on its own, with no hope of redemption and no
guidance.
-- 
...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.		Dick Dunn
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd				(303) 444-5710 x3086