Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes
Message-ID: <2186@pucc-h>
Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 00:14:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.2186
Posted: Wed Aug  7 00:14:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 03:20:55 EDT
References: <1334@pyuxd.UUCP> <2168@pucc-h>, <1411@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 75
Xref: linus net.philosophy:1960 net.religion.christian:1026

From rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen):

>> 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."
>> Despite statements of long-faced legalistic bluenoses to the contrary, the
>> morality of Christianity is expressed by positive statements (Thou shalt love
>> the Lord thy God with all you've got, and thy neighbor as thyself), and God
>> promises to change us so that we are the sort of people that behave this way
>> naturally, rather than in order to avoid violating some restriction.  The
>> second way (elimination of need for restrictions) sounds a whole lot freer
>> in the long run.  If you want REAL freedom, Rich, you're looking in the
>> wrong place. [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."

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".
And (trying not to flame here), it is only those bluenoses I mentioned who
consider Christian morality to be a bunch of proscriptions, as you think it 
is.  The statements I quoted about loving God and your neighbor are as far
removed from proscriptions and restrictions as anything could be.  Christ's
morality boils down to "Help others as well as yourself to reach their
fullest potential" -- a much bigger, more difficult and taxing (hence more
unappealing), but more positive statement.  (To qualify this discussion for
net.philosophy, there's an interesting subtopic, quite apart from any
religious overtones:  Which sort of morality is better?  One that keeps you
out of others' way, or one wherein the best practitioner goes out of his/her
way to help others?)

> 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.

> 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.

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.
(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.)  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."

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.  (James 5:16)
The prayer of a not-so-righteous man availeth sometimes....  (Rich McDaniel)