Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes Message-ID: <1403@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 19:00:26 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1403 Posted: Fri Aug 2 19:00:26 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 09:04:13 EDT References: <1334@pyuxd.UUCP> <1034@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 130 >>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. > Now, let us carry this all back to the original purpose of making this > argument about the shared value of survival: to establish Rich's "morality of > non-interference" as a moral imperative. Ignoring for the minute whether or > not this is really a shared value, Rich is essentially saying that the reason > we should accept his moral principle is because "we" like survival. The > problem is that, for any individual, it is quite reasonable for him to say, > "Well, I value my survival and well-being to the point where I care not about > anyone else's." Or, to take a more extreme position: "Since everyone else > values cooperation, I can improve my position the best by abusing their > trust." It's quite evident that Rich's position does in fact justify the > majority trying to suppress this kind of behavior. But the problem is that, > for the lawbreaker, Rich's position SUPPORTS his behavior equally well. He is > trying to maximize good (as he weights it!), and he is basing his evaluation > on his own interests. [WINGATE] But if he has any common sense, he knows that he will not maximize his good by engaging in such behavior in a society that will suppress him for doing so. Ultimate, longterm maximization. Not quick and dirty gratification that will result in minimizing good (and perhaps maximizing retribution) in the long run. Do you have common sense, Charley? I thought so. >> 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. > I simply do not understand this last fragment. Then I'll reiterate. There is really no such thing as granting of rights. Within the limits of physical practicality, I am essentially free to do anything I might desire. There is no "granting" of these rights. You've got them. There are only two ways to take them away: 1) force or threat of physical force, 2) by agreement evolving from cooperation. OR by a combination of both. When you belong to a community/society, you get certain benefits from membership. In return, to allow the society to continue performing its function and (hopefully) maximizing benefits, you agree to limit your rights. You are NOT free to do the things restricted by the society. Given this, what basis could a society have to limit rights beyond the minimal restrictions possible: non-interference? I can't think of any. Can the society tell people how or when to have lunch? Sex? Take showers? Wait a minute, you're saying, it could get to the point where your not taking showers (or generally keeping your surroundings clean) affects your neighbors? There you go! The point of interference. > And Rich, you erroneously assume that I believe in "God-given" rights. I do > not; rights derive out of human nature. Rights derive out of physical ability to do things. An animal predator has the "right" to hunt and eat its prey. This human nature stuff you keep bringing up continues to be irrelevant. >>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! > Therefore, I need pay no attention to your feeble protestations about rights. You do if you live in the same society that I do. And what's more, these are not "feeble protestations about rights", they are substantive arguments against limitations of rights. > The fact that you like surviving places no moral onus on me. Sure, I value > MY survival, but no one said I valued YOURS. There is in fact NO shared > value of abstract human life. In almost every case, there are many situations > where any individual does NOT value another's life. And there is of course > that minority which does not value their own survival. Charles, I don't give a flying petunia whether you "value" my survival or not. The fact is that each person does, and the world does not revolve around your egocentric "values". It is the fact that EACH of us values survival that encourages us to cooperate. Whether or not you altruistically or otherwise value my survival is irrelevant to me. Except in that you should recall the words of Pastor Niemoller, who (at first) didn't the value the survival of Jews, and homosexuals, and Communists, and Catholics, and so on. If that's not basis enough for valuing other people's survival (the fact that you are just as vulnerable to what happens to the other guy), then I have wonder about whether you DO have common sense... >>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 [do] 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. > Sure, but you rather baldly assume that pleasing the most people is either > a) a universally-desired goal or b) a moral principle. One could equally > establish the principle that each individual should try to maximize his > own good, and to hell with the rest. So where does this principle come > from? Baldly? I still have all my hair, thank you, Charles. You quoted the principle yourself above: in a society where others have grouped together in cooperation, it is in your interest to join them, or either 1) fend for yourself outside of their society or 2) face their wrath when you try to take benefits without fulfilling the responsibilities of membership in their society. You said it at least as eloquently as I did. >>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. > First, I am not claiming that Rich wants his Survival Principle to be > absolute. Secondly, there are always people for whom non-cooperation (and > abuse of other's cooperation) results in better gains than cooperation would. > Rich therefore has no reason to criticise these people. Ever hear the phrase "whole > sum of parts"? No matter. You yourself showed above how logical and rational it is to cooperate rather than face the wrath and/or retribution of the cooperative society. So what are you arguing about? You agreed with me. Now you're just DISagreeing with yourself, it seems. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr