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,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <947@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 02:04:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.947
Posted: Mon Jul 22 02:04:34 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jul-85 05:47:33 EDT
References: <1251@pyuxd.UUCP>
Followup-To: net.philosophy
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 52
Xref: linus net.religion.christian:908 net.philosophy:1834

[followups to net.philosophy please]

In article <1251@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>> 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. [DUBUC]

>Short term you may see a benefit, but when the society at large enforces
>its rights to protection against your interference, it won't be so much
>of a benefit.  An intelligent adult human would see that such interference
>will come back to haunt, and since there are benefits associated with
>cooperation, he might just cooperate.

I don't think that's so.  Many people seem to operate on the expectation
that they can thwart society forever, or that they don't care about the
sanctions imposed.  Some seem to succeed in thwarting society all their
lives.  And if you don't care about the long run, why worry?

>> 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.

>Let's start with physical harm to one's person, one's loved one's persons,
>one's property, and add further interference in the exercise of personal
>rights.  Was there anything you wanted to add or subtract?

Ah, but it makes all the difference in the world what those personal rights
are, and besides, there's no guarantee that these rights don't conflict at
times.  What then?

>> Charley's point might be to ask you, "Why should I value democracy?"

>1) Because it works.  2) Because it happens to be the system of this
>society (or a variant of it) and as the "patriots" say:  "If you don't
>like its principles, you can get out!"  (Though I doubt many of THAT
>breed of "patriot" that says such things could spell 'principle'.)
>3) Because, at its root, it seeks to provide maximal freedom and minimal
>restriction and interference.  4) As Churchill said, it's the worst
>form of government we have, except for all the others.

Suprise! I even agree with these reasons (mostly).  But the chain of
reasoning is going the wrong way.  Reinhold Neibuhr supported democracy, for
precisely the same reasons, but he got there from christianity.  The
principles and and the system are quite distinct.

Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe

"Give me a milk.  Chocolate."