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: <395@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Jul-85 20:02:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.395
Posted: Sat Jul 20 20:02:36 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jul-85 04:20:48 EDT
References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <360@utastro.UUCP> <5593@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 73

> >> ...Why should it matter?  Why should I care about improving society?
> >>[Wingate]
> 
> >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.

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.

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. 

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). 

> >> 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'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.

The paragraph indicates quite clearly that violent acts are a good example
of what I meant by harm. An example is all that is required since the
goal was to illustrate how an individual benefits from such laws.

> >> 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. 
> 
> >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?"
> 
> Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd

Go ask a refugee.

Padraig Houlahan.