Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <1291@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 11:32:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1291
Posted: Tue Jul 23 11:32:22 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 08:32:30 EDT
References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1225@pyuxd.UUCP> <944@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 37
Xref: linus net.philosophy:1854 net.religion.christian:940

>>>Why should it matter?  Why should I care about improving society? [WINGATE]

>>Because it benefits you.  Roads, telecommunications, all these real marvey
>>type things.  Could you create and maintain them yourself?  Could you
>>ever in your wildest dreams be "self-sufficient".  The interdependence of
>>humans and the benefits of cooperation behoove to cooperate or not partake
>>of the fruits of the cooperation. [ROSEN]

> Would it not be even more advantageous to suck off the benefits of other
> people's cooperation?  [WINGATE]

Not if they don't let you.  That would be stealing, taking the property of
other people without their consent, no?

>>On the contrary, one's immediate natural instincts lead one to immediate
>>gratification type actions, which in a world with other people will most
>>likely hurt you in the long run.  That's one thing humanity has (at least
>>partially) learned over thousands of years, and the reason why such societies
>>are built.  The notions have nothing to do wih "human nature", but rather
>>with a system that provides maximal benefits.

> Benefits to whom?  To the rulers!  The moral imperative they stress is that
> everyone should cooperate with them!  There is, for every society, a group
> of people whose interests demand the subversion or destruction of society.
> Rich's argument, from their point of view, justifies this destruction,
> because from their point of view, they are NOT maximizing their benefits.

So let's have a society where everyone is the rulers!  (I'm not sure where
you get the notion that rulers seek the destruction of their society.
On the contrary, they seek to make it last as long as possible to maximze
their benefits at other people's expense.  In a maximal tolerance morality,
there is no group at whose expense all this is gained:  the effort is
dispersed, the benefits are maximized.  Or are you insisting that every
society MUST have and under-group?)
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr