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 M. Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: support for areligious moral codes Message-ID: <6008@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Sep-85 09:24:55 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.6008 Posted: Mon Sep 30 09:24:55 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 07:28:01 EDT References: <1142@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 45 Xref: watmath net.politics:11276 net.religion:7840 In article <1142@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: >... >What particular moral codes should be enforced? There's basically only >one: Treat others the way you want others to treat you. It has a lot >of nice ramifications: You want people to respect you and your >opinions? Respect them and theirs. You want to keep your stuff? Don't >take anybody elses. You wish you hadn't gotten a social disease? Don't >give it to anybody else. (Note here that you still treat people the way >you want/deserve to be treated, even if they don't always reciprocate.) >A handy little moral code that isn't at all related to gods, eternal >damnation, or eternal bliss. > >Why should people follow it? In the first place, just because it's a >good thing. More practically, one should follow it because, in general, >it breeds itself. People often do respond in kind. But note again that >the rule doesn't say anything about how people actually *do* treat you, >only about how you *want* them to. That makes it very different from >"an eye for an eye". And since how I *want* to be treated has no necessary connection to how I *am* treated, it gives me no reason for treating others the way I would like to be treated. Neither does it give any reason for others to compel me to do so. Can I be arrested for treating others differently than I expect for myself? No, if I commit a crime that is not the basis for the charge against be. It is simply that I committed a crime that is wrong. >What compels people to follow it? Not a damn thing. But what *compels* >free-willed people to do anything? Not a damn thing. There's clearly >nothing that compels people to follow religious codes - if people were >sufficiently compelled to follow religious codes we wouldn't be having >this discussion, cause we'd all be religious and there wouldn't be >anything to argue about and we'd all get bored and go home. The enforcement of our laws compels people to obey. What is the justification for that enforcement? There is no compulsion to obey the "golden rule" "just because it's a good thing". What if someone doesn't think it is? What if they don't care whether it "breeds itself"? Why should they care? If the golden rule worked as well as you say it should, then I suppose we wouldn't have anything to argue about then, either. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com