Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: support for areligious moral codes
Message-ID: <5933@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 09:21:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5933
Posted: Thu Sep 19 09:21:10 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 05:57:42 EDT
References: <623@hou2g.UUCP> <5884@cbscc.UUCP> <1154@mhuxt.UUCP> <5906@cbscc.UUCP> <233@umich.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 46
Xref: watmath net.politics:11081 net.religion:7701

In article <233@umich.UUCP> torek@eecs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes:
>In article <5906@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc,) writes:
>>>      Here you've implied that no a-religious moral codes can supply 
>>>valid reasons for *why* they should be followed.  Care to demonstrate that,
>>>and how religious moral codes *do* supply valid reasons? [Sonntag]
>>...
>>Yes, that's my implication.  But you've shifted the burden of proof
>>on that.  I think the burden of proof lies with those who contend that
>>there are sufficient, compeling reasons for morality apart from appeal
>>to a transcendent authority.
>
>Ahem.  The reason for morality is that lack of it causes harm to
>individuals such as myself.  I think it becomes crystal clear why the
>areligious person ought to support an enforced public morality.  (Reasons
>to be moral as an individual are a little more complex, but just as
>explainable under areligous assumptions as under religious ones.)

OK, then explain them.  Also you should give examples of what particular
moral codes should be enforced and what binds the individual to obey
them.  It doesn't necessarily follow that I will be harmed by not obeying
moral codes.  How do you know I will?  If some individuals can except themselves
from the moral codes of society, where does that leave society?

>>Religious codes do provide the transcendent authority.  
>
>Wrong!  (I take you to mean that religious codes do supply valid reasons
>for a moral code, over and above any reasons that might be supplied
>without religion.  If you did not mean this, your statement does not
>address Sonntag's point.)  If there were no valid reasons for morality
>apart from religion, there would be no valid reasons at all; i.e. religion
>could not supply any.

You are just saying I am wrong without showing me how I am wrong.  Explain
how a moral code that does not transcend human reason has any authority
over others.

>>  I would contend that you can't provide sufficient reason to
>>compel others to obey any moral code without doing the same thing.
>
>Refuted above.

How, again?

-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com