Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Schools and Churches (really 'support' for areligious moral codes)
Message-ID: <5935@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 10:11:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5935
Posted: Thu Sep 19 10:11:28 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 05:58:49 EDT
References: <623@hou2g.UUCP> <5884@cbscc.UUCP> <1154@mhuxt.UUCP> <5906@cbscc.UUCP> <10425@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 47
Xref: watmath net.politics:11083 net.religion:7703

In article <10425@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes:
>In article <5906@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472) writes:
>>A response to Jeff Sonntag:
>>
>>>> I have never seen any moral code that could be supported apart from
>>>> some transcendent framework (religion).
>>>
>>>      But 'support' for a moral code, Paul, do you mean a *reason* for
>>>following it?  (like:  God'll send you to hell if ya don't follow the rules!)
>>>Why do you suppose that fear of punishment and hope for future reward are
>>>the only adequate motivations humans could have for adhering to a moral 
>>>code?  Is your opinion of human beings that low?
>>
>>No, I'm talking about reasons why we invoke a certain moral code and not
>>another.  Why is it considered a crime to murder and steal, for example?
>>I'm not talking about people's motives for obeying, those have nothing
>>to do with whether or not the morals themselves are good.  I'm talking
>>about the basis we have for saying that some practices are a crime and
>>enforce that belief through our laws.  
>
>	Paul continues to make the same point below.  Other Christians have
>asked this question, at one time or another.  The conclusion that most draw
>is that religion gives us the basis for our law.
>
>	I disagree.  The primary purpose of government (I would argue the
>sole purpose, but this debate has been going on in net.politics.theory for 
>some time) is the protection of the lives and property of its citizens from
>those who would take same by force.  If government does not enact and enforce
>laws in the protection of its citizens, then it is sterile and useless, and
>should be banished.  Hence the laws are not derived from any moral or religious
>basis -- they are the very soul of the state, and failure to enact and enforce
>such laws should and will be the end of the state.
>
>					-- Rick.

But you already have in mind a certian set of moral codes for government to
enforce.  If government acts purely in its own interests an tramples over
all the rights (lives and property) the people supposedly have, who is going
to call in the police.  What do you point to in order to say to that 
government that people really do have these rights and that they ought to
be respected.  What do you appeal to when the government says, "Well that's
just your belief"?


-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd