Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: support for areligious moral codes
Message-ID: <1142@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 18:59:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.1142
Posted: Thu Sep 26 18:59:41 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 08:28:47 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 63
Xref: watmath net.politics:11222 net.religion:7790


[Pick a nit, any nit]

From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc), Message-ID: <5933@cbscc.UUCP>:
>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?

"I'm not gonna prove mine til you prove yours, so There!"  Swell - this
is sure a fun tactic.

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".

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.

Like this.

-- 

--JB        (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)

"What if the after-effect of the terrible bomb is unusual beyond belief?
 Wouldn't you rather the whole population had listened to somebody like
    the old Indian chief?"   (The Roches)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com