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!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes
Message-ID: <1440@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 19:34:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1440
Posted: Wed Aug  7 19:34:47 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 20:22:54 EDT
References: <1334@pyuxd.UUCP> <2168@pucc-h>, <1411@pyuxd.UUCP> <2186@pucc-h>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 95
Xref: linus net.philosophy:1969 net.religion.christian:1029

>>>It is interesting to note that Rich Rosen's morality, when reduced to its
>>>essential statement, is expressed as a negative:  "Thou shalt not interfere."
>>> [SARGENT]

>>....  First, I'm not sure what would
>>make a morality that states things positively "better" (except subjectively)
>>than one that states things negatively.  Second, it's just as easy (and much
>>more accurate) to phrase "my" morality as "Thou shalt respect the rights of
>>other human beings" and "yours" as "Thou shalt not have sex outside of
>>marriage, do any of a large set of other things proscribed, etc." [ROSEN]

> It's not just a matter of STATING things positively.  Your morality still
> boils down to "Do not prevent others from reaching their fullest potential".

By telling them that the ONLY restrictions on their freedom are that they
not interfere with other people, this system "prevents" people from reaching
their fullest potential???  Huh?  On the contrary, it provides the very best
means for them to do so.  It took me ten or so readings before I figured out
what the heck you are trying to say:  I think you're implying that "only
this book can tell you the best way, and by reading it and avoiding all
life's dangers and pitfalls, you are 'helped' to reach your best potential".
Even if you accept the erroneous notion that this book contains only "best
ways", one gets the most out of life by living and learning.  If I accepted
a list of proscriptions as the "best ways", and avoided any other possibilities
open to me, how have I grown?  What have I learned?  What use has my life been?
It is ONLY through having as many possibilities open to you as possible,
and learning that choosing from among them and living them through, AND even
MAKING MISTAKES that your life is maximally enhanced.

>>In fact, what our government and Constitution say, effectively, is:  "You
>>have agreed to make this your form of government, and a government exists
>>to impose such laws and restrictions as deemed necessary to keep everything
>>in order.  Since this is supposed to be YOUR government, it agrees NOT to
>>create laws (or allow other people to) that infringe in these areas."

> This isn't net.politics, but that view of our government is a bit out of
> date.  For example, if a cop ever catches you speeding and you do anything
> other than brown-nose him, you're likely to catch hell; whereas if you
> submit meekly, you may get off with a warning.  This is a major
> infringement of rights, and it happens in this country.

We're talking about the goals and ideals that motivate the formation and
acceptance of a government, not the problems with the implementation.  We
should never let the bad implementation allow us to lose sight of the
original goals.  But alas, we have.

>> Imagine that, this [Rich's non-interference] morality is Rich-centric.  It
>> also happens to be Jeff-centric, and Arndt-centric, and Joe-centric, and
>> Tom-centric.  Do you see something wrong with this?  It's a basically
>> selfish morality, that limits that immediate selfishness that would result
>> in harm for  others, thus extending the longterm selfish benefit FOR EACH
>> PERSON.  Are you making a value judgment that because it is based on such
>> rational selfishness, it "must" be bad?  Imagine that, pseudo-altruistic
>> cooperation really is selfishness...

> I'm not saying it's bad at all; it's certainly better than a lot of societal
> arrangements which exist in the world.  I'm just saying it's not the best.
> A society of love would beat a society of non-interference any day, and be a
> lot more joyous (because a lot less self-conscious) into the bargain.

But how do you MAKE people love each other?  By force?  By edict?  By
indoctrination?  The beauty of the non-interference system is that there is
little or no need for actual force; common sense is your MOTIVATION for living
up to that morality:  if you do interfere, you're likely to get in trouble
with those you interfere with.  The "society of love" is an unrealistic
concept, because unrequited altruistic love is not in everyone's self
interest, and thus anyone who sees through this just doesn't bother.

> It sounds to me like the non-interference morality is, at bottom, based on
> the idea of "I don't want to be hurt" -- the same thing on which the
> perfectionistic version of Christianity which I am outgrowing is based on.

A lot of things sound a lot of different ways to you, Jeff.  If you want to
project your own "hurt" feelings onto other people and other systems of
belief, please don't tell it to me.  It would be much appreciated.  I am
appealing to the newly changed Jeff's newfound rationality.

> (Actually, you have yourself said that its underlying idea is that you value
> [like] survival, i.e. you don't want to die.  There's only one problem with
> this approach:  Eventually, none of us will get out of life alive, no matter
> how much or little others interfere with us.)

I can't think of too much we can do about this, which is precisely why we
try to maximize our lives.

> Biblical Christianity is
> closer to this idea:  "So what if I am hurt?  It's not forever." and even
> "So what if I die?  It's not forever."

But, of course, that's putting the cart before the horse.  (Why am I
using that phrase so much lately?)  You don't want to be hurt, you seek
an extension to life, so you make one up.
-- 
"Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr