Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!lll-lcc!csustan!smdev From: smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.women,talk.abortion Subject: Re: Treating others as equals. Message-ID: <219@csustan.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Oct-86 14:36:44 EDT Article-I.D.: csustan.219 Posted: Fri Oct 3 14:36:44 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 09:24:06 EDT References: <217@csustan.UUCP> <1610@cbdkc1.UUCP> Reply-To: smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) Organization: City of Turlock Lines: 78 Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:396 soc.women:231 talk.abortion:81 In article <1610@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: < In article <> I write: < 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? Stealing and killing is by definition an interaction with society. Other people _are_ society. You can't steal from yourself, and I see nothing wrong about no-strings-attached suicide. If you steal and/or kill, you have interacted with society in a negative manner; as a member of one society, I have no problem with removing the "irritation" (through rehabilitation, incarceration, or capital punishment). Laws are the emobodiment of a social contract; violations of the terms of the contract result in expulsion from society. Laws do not equal ethics. >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. I never called anti-social behavior wrong. I simply said that for there exist pragmatic reasons for behaving in a manner that will ease your interactions with society. If someone truly has the power and the desire to behave in any way they desire without risking negative consequences, I say two things: 1) this person is not interacting with any other people in manners that they find undesirable; or 2) we're talking about the ruler of the whole world here... If I can get away with something, and the value to me of whatever I gain is more than the value of lost societal interaction (not to mention the fact that some social mechanism may act to capture and "punish" me), then I have a valid reason for doing as I please. Right and wrong do not exist apart from human interactions. >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. But why do people _obey_ the laws? < I have no respect for people who argue that something is right (or wrong) < because "the Bible says so." > >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 I don't particularly like the idea of a society of "pure consequentialists". I also don't like a society based on "god's laws". I would rather that people behaved respectably toward each other because each person felt that it was the best thing to do. I treat those around me as equals because I want the same treatment for myself. That is the ultimate pragmatism - "Don't tread on my prerogatives, and I'll leave yours alone." \scott -- Scott Hazen Mueller lll-crg.arpa!csustan!smdev City of Turlock work: (209) 668-5590 -or- 5628 901 South Walnut Avenue home: (209) 527-1203 Turlock, CA 95380