Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Science & Philosophy vs Rosenism (Materialist Moral Philosophy)
Message-ID: <1820@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Oct-85 00:13:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1820
Posted: Sat Oct 12 00:13:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 06:19:46 EDT
References: <1663@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 33

Rich Rosen:

> Oh, great, so now a person's internal state, which comes from the wide
> variety of things many of which are beyond his/her control, if it leads
> them to do "wrong", makes them a sinner!  I cannot express in words my
> revulsion to such a philosophy, that people who do "wrong" because of what
> their brains have come to be are "sinners" (and thus, I assume, "worthy"
> of some form of punishment either from a deity or from human beings in
> power).  I know certain people hold this philosophy near and dear to
> their hearts, but I think this just goes to show that this is an example
> of building a system of thought where you can take credit for whatever
> good happens to you while blaming others for their "evil".  Work backwards
> from the goal of blaming people and being able to punish them for being
> "bad", and you get this.

Right off the bat in this passage there is a clear and obvious
contradiction.  A person's internal state, in the absence of "free will
souls", IS the person.  I can't lead them to do anything; it does it
directly.  And the fact that there are some deterministic influences does
not imply that the inner state is not responsible in and of itself in some
fashion (and thus, that the person is responsible).

To compound these errors, we have this little diatribe against what can only
be described as a parody of bad Christian theology.  To be charitable, I
will take this statement as washed of much of its absurdity.  I'm still
faced with the fact that Rich appears to be swayed more by the possible
abuse of an idea, or even its direct implications, rather than by truth.  If
the rule of sin holds, and there is a God who judges, then it is so,
regardless of anyone's revulsion or any other emotion.  Perhaps this is what
Rich really thinks; but if it is so, he is hardly one to run about shouting
"Wishful Thinking!" at his opponents.

Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe