Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: If that's all there is, my friend...
Message-ID: <1197@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Oct-84 12:51:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.1197
Posted: Tue Oct  9 12:51:33 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Oct-84 05:06:23 EDT
References: pyuxn.1163, <302@uwmacc.UUCP>, <1196@pucc-h> <1226@pucc-h>, <1155@pyuxn.UUCP> <1 <1382@browngr.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 30

> To Rich Rosen:
>   There's nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws of Subjectivity, but
> that does not make Rationality any better! It has its own flaws, possibly
> much worse ones.  [browngr!dk]

I'd be very interested in hearing some of these flaws.  But given that this
sounds so much like an Arndtian smear, I doubt that we'll hear any, at least
not from this person.

Rationality is not a way of life.  It is a means for making choices and
decisions about living one's life in the best possible way.  It can also be
used to formulate the best minimal rules to govern a society without
interfering in individual lives.  The key word here is "minimal".  Many
religionists (especially "autocratic religionists" who are autocratic in the
sense that they would like to see their autocracy permeate everyone's lives)
point out that "all societal law is based on imposing morality on others",
thus implying that 1) their morality is right, and 2) it might as well be
imposed on everyone just as much as any other chosen morality.  But all
moralities are not the same.  A rational morality would impose only a 
minimal set of restrictions to ensure individual freedom and safety from
interference by those who would make up a random morality and impose it on
their lives.  It would seem that many "moralists" have it backwards:  what is
the goal of having a "morality" in the first place?  To provide the best means
for each individual peson to live his/her life, and thus to benefit the group
as a whole (society) as well.  Not the other way around.  It would seem that
many of the existing "moralities" (and the "moralists" who want to "bring back
these old values" to make everything better again [?]) have lost sight of this
goal.
-- 
If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing.     Rich Rosen  pyuxn!rlr