Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Science & Philosophy vs Rosenism (Materialist Moral Philosophy)
Message-ID: <1907@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 13:48:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1907
Posted: Fri Oct 18 13:48:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 08:18:41 EDT
References: <1663@pyuxd.UUCP> <1820@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 59

>>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. [ROSEN]

> 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). [WINGATE]

Hmmm, this is an intriguing proposition.  The internal state, having gotten
to be the way it is (with indoctrination and conditioning leading that
internal state into various forms) is "responsible" for anything it does
despite the fact that it is not responsible for becoming the way it is,
which may mean a state in which it is unable to make reasoned decisions.
I call this proposition a vacuous assertion.  If a person has learned
through religious indoctrination or any other means to be unable to make
conscious rational decisions, if they have not learned such methods for
making such decisions, how on earth could a reasonable thinking person
hold them responsible?  Obviously a lot of people want to do so, because
that enables them to engage in various forms of blame and punishment for
wrongdoing.  (Which "contradiction" were you talking about?)

> 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.

When Charles learns a way to dissociate an idea from its direct implications,
I will nominate him for a Nobel Prize.  Until then, I will continue to
associate ideas with their direct logical implications, and will continue to
be wary of how certain ideas build in that potential for abuse.  As (I would
think) we all should.  Charles, I only wish it was a parody.

> 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.

But since "the rule of sin" and the "god who judges" are just your assumptions,
I have every right to express revulsion at the notion that such assumptions
should be the basis by which laws are formulated and by which human beings
are judged and restricted.  Charles' peculiar insistence that I am somehow
wishfulthinking away the "truth" that god exists offers a substantiation of
why his beliefs are rightly called wishful thinking.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr