Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes
Message-ID: <2168@pucc-h>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 23:09:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.2168
Posted: Fri Aug  2 23:09:15 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 08:14:08 EDT
References: <1334@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 39
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2169 net.religion.christian:1020

From rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen):

> 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.  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 binds 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.

It is interesting to note that Rich Rosen's morality, when reduced to its
essential statement, is expressed as a *negative*:  "Thou shalt not interfere."
Despite statements of long-faced legalistic bluenoses to the contrary, the
morality of Christianity is expressed by *positive* statements (Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all you've got, and thy neighbor as thyself), and God
promises to change us so that we are the sort of people that behave this way
naturally, rather than in order to avoid violating some restriction.  The
second way (elimination of need for restrictions) sounds a whole lot freer
in the long run.  If you want REAL freedom, Rich, you're looking in the
wrong place.

> 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.

You are actually being much less than anthropocentric; you're being
Rich-centric.  You justify your own survival only on the grounds that you
like it, and you justify your non-interference morality only because it
would benefit YOU.

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.  (James 5:16)
The prayer of a not-so-righteous man availeth sometimes....  (Rich McDaniel)