Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!sri-spam!rutgers!caip!clyde!cbatt!cbdkc1!pmd
From: pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Treating others as equals.
Message-ID: <1610@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 12:13:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1610
Posted: Thu Oct  2 12:13:36 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:25:12 EDT
References: <2710@burdvax.UUCP> <5833@ut-sally.UUCP> <311@isieng.UUCP> <217@csustan.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 52
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:378 soc.women:207 talk.abortion:68
Summary: (Was "Re: Feminism and Abortion")

In article <217@csustan.UUCP> smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
>>In article <> raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes:
>>>>[...some xtian propaganda saying we should all be "Good Samaritans"...]
>
>This is called begging the question.  You assume that for some reason there
>is something intrinsically good about treating other people as equals and
>then say, "Now wouldn't it be nice if people really did this."
>
>There are real and good _reasons_ for treating with others as equals; they
>also have nothing to do with one or another religion.  There is the pragmatic
>reason that people will have nothing to do with you if you do not act as if
>they are worth something.  There is the internal reason that quite often it
>simply *feels good* to be polite/nice/helpful to others.  If you don't want
>to feel good, and don't care to interact with society, there is nothing at
>all _wrong_ with being an obnoxious idiot; just don't act like one and
>expect people to care to associate with you.

One wonders why we need laws to help protect people from one another if
it is as simple as you imply.  Are your reasons really good enough to
convinces the thief or the murderer that he shouldn't steal or kill?  If
*they* don't want to feel good (assuming their crimes really make them
feel bad), and don't care to "interact with society", is there nothing
at all wrong with stealing and killing?  Take less extreme examples of
unequal treatment and the same principle applies.  We still see the need
for laws to insure that the possibility of reward for such behavior is
diminished to the point where people will be less tempted to indulge in
it (e.g. the proposed federal ERA is such a law).  Without these added
restraints, it seems fairly likely to me that negative social consequences
of wrong actions would lack the necessary intensity and frequency to prove
practical as a deterrent.  In other words, if one has the power to avoid
the consequences you state or considers them to be trivial in comparison to
the rewards she seeks for her anti-social behavior, your "pragmatic reasons"
for calling such behavior wrong lose all their weight.

Our society does not operate on pure pragmatism where morality is concerned.
We "hedge our bets" with laws that raise the stakes for wrong behavior.

>I have no respect for people who argue that something is right (or wrong)
>because "the Bible says so."
>                                \scott

Everyone appeals to an authority (either consciously or not) in exercising
their moral beliefs (I suspect that, deeper down, you are "begging some
questions" too).  To imply that unsociable behavior is naturally
and of necessity "wrong" because of its consequences alone (having nothing
to do with beliefs based on an accepted--tacit or otherwise--authority) is
being naive.  I think that a society that relied purely on the natural
consequences of behavior as a deterrent to "wrong" behavior would not
last long.
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbdkc1!pmd