Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting) Message-ID: <5593@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 08:50:22 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5593 Posted: Wed Jul 17 08:50:22 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 09:40:04 EDT References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <360@utastro.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 45 >> ...Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? >>[Wingate] >From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting >directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute >"moral authority" to justify this. [Houlahan] It's not obvious to me that I would benefit directly from improving society. Can you demonsrate the connection? Depending on the person involved, one might feel that there is more direct benefit to be gained by cheating and committing crimes. He may just have a different opinion about the laws that would prevent him than most of us do. >> It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best >> I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature. Now, >> perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some >> empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this >> supposed human nature should be catered to. >I'm not sure what is meant by "human nature" here. It is sufficient to >say that from my perspective, any rule of society that prevents someone >from hurting others is one that I approve of, since it will protect >me from violence, or at least try to dissuade someone from attempting >to harm me. One doesn't need a very sophisticated model of human nature >to understand this. Therefore there is no need for me to provide you >with any model, or a defense as to why it should be catered to, over >and above what has already been said. It's simple until you attempt the necessary task of defining what constitutes harm. You seem to be assuming some definition. What is it? You might have to tell us why that definition should be catered to in that case. >> I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively >> with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings >> which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. >I don't see where your problem is. It is called democracy. Charley's point might be to ask you, "Why should I value democracy?" -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd