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: <1293@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 11:40:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1293
Posted: Tue Jul 23 11:40:38 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 08:33:09 EDT
References: <1251@pyuxd.UUCP> <947@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 61
Xref: linus net.philosophy:1855 net.religion.christian:941

>>>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. [ROSEN]

> 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? [WINGATE]

And if you stay out of the way of the rest of society, who cares?  Like
our so-called survivalist friends.  Unfortunately, such people are not the
pantheons of independence they would like us to believe when they snatch
what they need from society at large.  Doing that, of course, may run counter
to the wishes of the society, and ...

>>>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?

I asked for specific things you wanted to add or subtract, not vague
generalities!

>>>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.

Ah, the "right" way to go, as opposed to my "wrong" way.

> The principles and and the system are quite distinct.

We value the system because it upholds the principles.
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr