Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Evidences for religion (reposting) Message-ID: <468@utastro.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 01:37:57 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.468 Posted: Fri Aug 2 01:37:57 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 21:02:19 EDT Distribution: net Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 99 Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <360@utastro.UUCP> <5593@cbscc.UUCP>, <395@utastro.UUCP> <1046@cbsck.UUCP> > >> >From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting > >> >directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute > >> >"moral authority" to justify this. [Houlahan] > >> > >> It's not obvious to me that I would benefit directly from improving > >> society. Can you demonsrate the connection? Depending on the person > >> involved, one might feel that there is more direct benefit to be gained > >> by cheating and committing crimes. He may just have a different opinion > >> about the laws that would prevent him than most of us do. [Dubuc] > > > >In the context of this discussion, improvement has been explicitly > >associated with notions like freedom from tyranny and violent acts. In > >curtailing acts of violence, a society improves. You benefit by > >being the object of fewer violent actions. > > Can you demonstrate the connection to the tyrant? He is relatively > free from being the object of violent acts. Yet he sees no problem > with inflicting them on others to bring about his own will. First of all, tyrants are frequently the objects of violence, just like anyone else in power. If he is free from being the object of violence, then he must be providing something - stability perhaps - that people have decided offsets his excesses. Secondly, I may succeed in demonstrating the connection to the tyrant, but he may choose to ignore it afterwords. Whether he chooses to abide by it or not does not reflect on its intrinsic validity, (many people reject christianity, that does not, in itself, invalidate it). > >You may in fact do better, as an individual, by cheating, but there > >are only so many hawks that can be supported in a population made > >up of hawks and doves. In another article I pointed out that > >refugees constitute empirical evidence that to many people freedom > >from economic, political, and physical violence is desirable. These > >people are demonstrating quite unambiguously that given a choice > >they reject the population dominated by hawks. > > When the hawks run out of doves they prey on each other. Would you > expect them to starve rather than do that? I don't think the "hawks > and doves" analogy goes very far. You are being a little obtuse here. The point is that for the population as a whole, the above paragraph is valid. Its aim was to demonstrate the interaction between hawks and doves. It is incorrect to apply it to only one or the other. > Why is the refugee's view of the situation accurate and the tyrant's not? > What compels the tyrant to accept the refugee's values? > >There are two distinct topics that should not be confused here. > >The first concerns the form of society ( should it consist of hawks > >or doves? ), while the second concerns the individuals behaviour > >(should I be a hawk, or a dove?). For both hawks and doves, the > >most desirable guiding principles are that for a dovish society. > >(This assumes that survival, and protection of the self, are goals > >that are common to both hawks and doves. Criminals are not normally > >opposed to laws, only against them being used to curtail the criminal's > >activity). > > So do you have any real objections to the hawks behaviour, or his decision > to become a hawk? If so how do you substantiate them? You seem to > accept them as normal parts of society. Can you judge a hawk's behaviour > to be wrong? If so, how? Yes I have objections to any behaviour that makes life miserable by being the object of violent acts, and other unpleasant stuff. I think that society will always contain a violent element; the guiding principles should aim to curtail these elements. Yes I can judge a hawk's behaviour to be wrong if it is violent and unprovoked. You ask how? The same way I reach the conclusion that muggings are undesirable; I would not like to be a victim of such an act, therefore I am prepared to give up any right to mug people if society's rules prevent others from mugging me. > The last sentence seem's odd. If I am a criminal, then I am not against > laws that prohibit what I want to do, I am only against such laws being > applied to me. If that's what you mean, then I don't think I see any > real difference (only a techical one: either there is no law or I am > above the law... There is a difference, and it has already been pointed out. You may choose to ignore the law, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. >... In either case none of my actions can be judged as wrong). Not in an absolute sense perhaps. So what? If you feel uncomfortable with this prospect then give some examples that clearly show the existence of "wrong" actions which are not related to society, ie actions which most people would agree are "wrong" but which do not hurt or make life less pleasant for others, that is, involve society. Failure to do so argues strongly against any "absolute" criteria (i.e. god based etc.). Padraig Houlahan.