Re: the media doesn't take christianity seriously

David Johnston <rgorman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 12:48:31 GMT, Wayne Brown <fwbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>William December Starr <wdstarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> The trouble is, _with_ God there's no source for an absolute
>>> standard either.
>>
>>Then we might as well toss out any idea that anyone ever is right or
>>wrong about anything, or that we can blame people for their behavior.
>>So do away with the legal system and empty the prisons; or rather, let
>>the government imprison anyone or release anyone they wish for any reason
>>or no reason.
>
> That would obviously not be in our best interest.

Maybe not in *yours*, but it might in *my* best interest. Why I should
I prefer your interest over mine?

>
>>
>>Why do you believe no absolute standard of morality exists? Where do
>>you think we get human moral codes?
>
> Our need to survive living with each other.
>
>
> Are they invented out of a vacuum?
>>If so, what reason is there to follow them?
>>
>
> Our need to survive living with each other.

OK, fine. Now explain to me why I shouldn't sit back and let you do all
the work needed for survival while I enjoy the "good life." I'm sure
the rest of you can build quite a comfortable world for me, without any
effort on my part. All I have to do is be clever enough to "look busy"
and keep you from finding out I'm freeloading on the rest of you.

Or maybe I'm quite confident of my ability to survive without your help.
In fact, it would be more comfortable for me if there were fewer of you
around to share the available resources. So maybe I'll slip a little
something into the water supply when no one's looking...

Those are despicable, selfish attitudes, right? Oh, wait... if our
"morality" is based only on survival, then there's nothing "wrong"
with selfishness, especially if it helps me survive by giving me an
advantage over you. The ability to take advantage of you would be a
useful survival trait. So if you think I'm "cruel" or "selfish," well,
that's just because my method of survival happens to be inconvenient
for you. But without an absolute moral standard, who's to say my method
isn't just as good as your unselfish, cooperative method?

And by the way, who says our "need to survive living with each other" is
important, anyway? Perhaps I'm feeling suicidal, and I don't mind taking
the rest of you with me. So perhaps I could amuse myself by pushing a
few buttons here in this reactor control room and see what happens...
After all, why I should I believe anyone's survival, including my own,
is important? It's not like there's any Moral Authority telling me that
survival is important or that murder is wrong. That's just the opinion
of other people, and why should their opinions be better than mine?

No matter what reasons you find to explain why I (or anyone) should
do anything for the "common good," none of those reasons can answer
the question, "Why should *I*, personally, care about the common good,
as long as I can find a way to get what *I* want?" -- *unless* you can
demonstrate that caring what happens to others is good in itself, simply
because it's *right*. And that has to be based on something more than
human opinion, or else "right" means only "what's convenient or preferable
in the eyes of the person who's trying to talk me into doing it."

--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
.

Loading