Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <944@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 01:38:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.944
Posted: Mon Jul 22 01:38:45 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jul-85 05:46:34 EDT
References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1225@pyuxd.UUCP>
Followup-To: net.philosophy
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 40
Xref: linus net.religion.christian:905 net.philosophy:1832

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!"