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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <946@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 01:53:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.946
Posted: Mon Jul 22 01:53:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jul-85 05:47:13 EDT
References: <395@utastro.UUCP>
Followup-To: net.philosophy
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 22

[followups to net.philosophy please]

In article <395@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:

>There are two distinct topics that should not be confused here.
>The first concerns the form of society ( should it consist of hawks
>or doves? ), while the second concerns the individuals behaviour 
>(should I be a hawk, or a dove?). For both hawks and doves, the
>most desirable guiding principles are that for a dovish society.
>(This assumes that survival, and protection of the self, are goals
>that are common to both hawks and doves. Criminals are not normally
>opposed to laws, only against them being used to curtail the criminal's
>activity). 

I don't see that this provides any moral force at all.  It seems to bring
you to an argument that maximizing freedom is good for criminals because it
makes it easier for them to prey on others.  Either that, or you must
advocate that, for some reason, it is more important to cater to the desires
of the victims than that of the criminals.  So far, no one has attempted to
advance such a reason which holds any water.

Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe