Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes
Message-ID: <1182@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 10-Aug-85 16:03:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1182
Posted: Sat Aug 10 16:03:04 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 22:38:03 EDT
References: <1432@pyuxd.UUCP> <1403@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 84

>>  It simply isn't valid to say that "ALL humans should
>> cooperate" because "MOST humans want to cooperate"; morality simply isn't
>> a ratification of group will.

>It isn't?  Oh, yes, that's right, if you've got that cart (god) before your
>horse (morality).  There's no requirement that a morality have some universal
>appeal, is there.  Only if you presuppose god does that apply, and certainly
>not all of us have the need to do that.  What morality needs is a common
>sense basis for believing that it is in your interest to stick to it, and
>that there are good reasons for having it.  Fini.

Sorry, Rich, but you can have universal morality on your own terms.  (it's
unknowable, but hey.)  You seem to have this obsession with Gods these days...

Leading to the other article....

>But if he has any common sense, he knows that he will not maximize his good
>by engaging in such behavior in a society that will suppress him for doing
>so.  Ultimate, longterm maximization.  Not quick and dirty gratification
>that will result in minimizing good (and perhaps maximizing retribution)
>in the long run.  Do you have common sense, Charley?  I thought so.

That's not true, though, if he decides that he CAN thwart society.  It
should be hardly necessary to observe that 'common sense' means "It's obvious
to me," i.e., that Rich's statement is only his opinion, and not a fact.

>  There is really no such thing as granting of rights.
>Within the limits of physical practicality, I am essentially free to do
>anything I might desire.  There is no "granting" of these rights.  You've
>got them.  There are only two ways to take them away:  1) force or threat
>of physical force, 2) by agreement evolving from cooperation.  OR by a
>combination of both.  When you belong to a community/society, you get certain
>benefits from membership.  In return, to allow the society to continue
>performing its function and (hopefully) maximizing benefits, you agree to
>limit your rights.  You are NOT free to do the things restricted by the
>society.  Given this, what basis could a society have to limit rights beyond
>the minimal restrictions possible:  non-interference?  I can't think of
>any.  Can the society tell people how or when to have lunch?  Sex?  Take
>showers?  Wait a minute, you're saying, it could get to the point where
>your not taking showers (or generally keeping your surroundings clean)
>affects your neighbors?  There you go!  The point of interference.

You are undermining yourself severely here, not least because the third 
sentence in the paragraph posits free will.  You erroneously imply that 
societies form of free association, which they do not.  Most people join
society through birth.  It is therefore incorrect to assume that some sort
of implicit contractual arrangement exists.  You also speak of the purpose of
a society.  Consider then a monastery.  It exists due to free choice.  It has
a well-stated purpose.  How do you propose to criticize its choice of rules?
Conversely, take a child born in an isolated village.  Can it truly be said 
that its participation in society in any way involves in consent?

>> Therefore, I need pay no attention to your feeble protestations about
>> rights.

>You do if you live in the same society that I do.  And what's more, these
>are not "feeble protestations about rights", they are substantive arguments
>against limitations of rights.

But I DO live in the same society-- and it does not subscribe to your system.
It therefore has every right to suppress you, because you are immoral.  NOW
do you see the problem?

>Charles, I don't give a flying petunia whether you "value" my survival or
>not.  The fact is that each person does, and the world does not revolve
>around your egocentric "values".  It is the fact that EACH of us values
>survival that encourages us to cooperate.  Whether or not you altruistically
>or otherwise value my survival is irrelevant to me.  Except in that you
>should recall the words of Pastor Niemoller, who (at first) didn't value the
>survival of Jews, and homosexuals, and Communists, and Catholics, and so on.
>If that's not basis enough for valuing other people's survival (the fact that
>you are just as vulnerable to what happens to the other guy), then I have
>wonder about whether you DO have common sense...

Bullshit, Rich.  All you could mean by that is that you do.  People value 
their own survival and well-being, by and large.  But some don't, and many
people value their own life first.  People acquire power, so that they can
ensure their own position.  With one breath you deny evil in the world, with
the next you say it doesn't matter, and with the third you accuse me of all 
of it.  You say that society determines morality by consensus, yet you assert
a morality which this society does not believe in.  Would you care to
resolve a few of these contradictions?

C Wingate