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.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <1251@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 08:33:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1251
Posted: Fri Jul 19 08:33:01 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 12:11:36 EDT
References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <360@utastro.UUCP> <5593@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 48

>>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]

Short term you may see a benefit, but when the society at large enforces
its rights to protection against your interference, it won't be so much
of a benefit.  An intelligent adult human would see that such interference
will come back to haunt, and since there are benefits associated with
cooperation, he might just cooperate.

>>I'm not sure what is meant by "human nature" here. It is sufficient to
>>say that from my perspective, any rule of society that prevents someone
>>from hurting others is one that I approve of, since it will protect
>>me from violence, or at least try to dissuade someone from attempting
>>to harm me. One doesn't need a very sophisticated model of human nature
>>to understand this. Therefore there is no need for me to provide you
>>with any model, or a defense as to why it should be catered to, over
>>and above what has already been said.

> It's simple until you attempt the necessary task of defining what
> constitutes harm.  You seem to be assuming some definition.  What is it?
> You might have to tell us why that definition should be catered to
> in that case.

Let's start with physical harm to one's person, one's loved one's persons,
one's property, and add further interference in the exercise of personal
rights.  Was there anything you wanted to add or subtract?

>>I don't see where your problem is. It is called democracy.

> Charley's point might be to ask you, "Why should I value democracy?"

1) Because it works.  2) Because it happens to be the system of this
society (or a variant of it) and as the "patriots" say:  "If you don't
like its principles, you can get out!"  (Though I doubt many of THAT
breed of "patriot" that says such things could spell 'principle'.)
3) Because, at its root, it seeks to provide maximal freedom and minimal
restriction and interference.  4) As Churchill said, it's the worst
form of government we have, except for all the others.
-- 
Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege...
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr