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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes
Message-ID: <1335@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 13:31:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1335
Posted: Sat Jul 27 13:31:34 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 06:15:45 EDT
References: <488@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <996@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 16

> Wrongo.  It isn't Paul, after all, that is claiming total objectivity.  If
> this sinks his argument, then it sinks Rich's all the more, since Rich is
> denying the validity of appealing to intuition and feelings. [WINGATE]

As I've said in n+1 other articles, this is only true if you assume (which you
are) that I was seeking to *justify* human survival as an absolute.  That
wasn't the question, and I wasn't trying to do so.  Such a thing cannot be
done without anthropocentric "special status for humanity" claims such as those
that permeate certain religions.  The question was "Why do we value survival?"
and the answer is "Because we like surviving, because our chemistry is such
that we humans gain pleasure from surviving, and seek to continue to do so".
Sounds objective enough to me.  It's not "appealing" to our likes and dislikes
as justification, it's simply stating facts.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr