Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <360@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 20:00:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.360
Posted: Mon Jul 15 20:00:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 05:17:23 EDT
References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 51

> In article <353@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
> 
> >It is consistent to maintain a view point which accords protection to
> >members of society on the basis of the increased stability and comfort
> >resulting for the group as a whole. This approach does not require absolute
> >moralistic criteria.
> 
> The hell it doesn't.  You've simply transferred moral authority somewhere
> else, in this case to impart "rightness" to societal or group stability and
> comfort.  

I don't understand this. The fact that "moral authority" has been transferred
in now way proves that it is absolute. The fact that it could be transferred
could be taken as evidence that it is not absolute.

> ...Why should it matter?  Why should I care about improving society?

From my perspective, you should care since you would be benefitting 
directly from any improvements. It does not require an absolute 
"moral authority" to justify this.

> It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best
> I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature.  Now,
> perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some
> empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this
> supposed human nature should be catered to.

I'm not sure what is meant by "human nature" here. It is sufficient to
say that from my perspective, any rule of society that prevents someone
from hurting others is one that I approve of, since it will protect
me from violence, or at least try to dissuade someone from attempting
to harm me. One doesn't need a very sophisticated model of human nature
to understand this. Therefore there is no need for me to provide you
with any model, or a defense as to why it should be catered to, over
and above what has already been said.

> I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively
> with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings
> which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself. 

I don't see where your problem is. It is called democracy.

> ... And besides, you
> must also deal with the existentialist challenge: is there really any
> essential human nature?
> 
> Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe

Perhaps, but that is a separate issue. 

Padraig Houlahan.