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