Subject:
|
Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:08:50 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
{johnneal@uswest.net}saynotospam{}
|
Viewed:
|
660 times
|
| |
|
|
Eric McCarthy wrote:
> John Neal wrote:
> > ... In fact, I see the world evolving the opposite way, where people are becoming more
> > and more *un*civil ...
>
> I agree with you, it is very unfortunate.
>
> For example, people swearing at others just because of their
> political party affiliation:
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7349
Hoisted by my own petard? :-) I apologize for that unfortunate "vent"-- that post was
composed in the heat of the moment, and my frustration got the better of me. Of course, if
I were truly uncivil, I would have actually *used* swear words and directed them *at* the
people, rather than as some sort of lazy adjective. Actually, during the infrequent times
I do swear, it is usually out of frustration of a situation, I am alone, and is never
directed at people FTF. Irony is, I bet my little ventings are actually good for me, as
they release stress and are prolly saving me an early heart attack-- I blow, and I move
on:-)
> > ... I have argued that man is not Good, that only God is Good.
> > I have also asked the question "from where does Good come?",
> > and have not gotten a satisfactory answer (from Atheists)...
>
> Maybe you don't associate with liberal humanists enough. :-)
Maybe there is a reason for that:-) But seriously, I would love to discuss with a
professed humanist what their motivations are.
> There are also scientific explanations of altruism.
> It might be an extension of the child-protecting instinct.
> Altruism within a group of primitives trying to
> survive is beneficial to the survival of the whole group,
> even if one's status within the group is not improved.
> So if you agree with evolution, and if a tendency towards
> altruistic behavior can be inherited, then you can see how
> altruism could arise without the intervention of a
> divine being.
I think it is a stretch to "extend" from instincts. Instincts are obeyed without
question. Altruism is subjective, and I am highly skeptical that one can "evolve" from the
other. Besides, my understanding of altruism is that it is unconditional and unselfish. I
would think that that would be *counter* productive to evolution (nice guys finish last
idea). Altruistic people get trampled all of the time, but they have a better
understanding of what is important in this world.
I will say this: without God having had acted in the world over time, we as free-thinking
humans would have destroyed each other by now. Without a moral compass that is beyond
human understanding, we are doomed. *That* is our nature.
-John
> There are some sadistic humans who seem not to have any
> sense of empathy, let alone altruism. I would not be
> surprised if scientists were to find brain structures
> that are specificly for empathy and/or altruism, and
> to find that those humans are deficient in those brain
> structures.
> Re: Libertarianism
> My experience agrees with both you and Dave factorial that
> Libertarians tend to have an idealistic view of human
> nature. The biggest Libertarian I know always
> rides a bicycle to work to avoid polluting, and he also
> donates blood more often than anyone else I know.
> If everyone were like him, we wouldn't have pollution
> and gridlock, there would be no blood supply shortage,
> and Libertarianism would work.
>
>
> /Eric McC/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
