Subject:
|
Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:08:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
853 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I guess I'm saying that I think only sentient
> beings who have free will (or the illusion of it-- different debate, but I
> digress) are *able* to be altruistic.
> [snip]
> God acts in the world through His people. If I as a Christian give to a
> charity, then that charity has been blessed by God (through me). If I as a
> Christian enact a series of events which prevent a war or some other
> catastrophe, it is God who is ultimately the reason. I do good things
> because I am actively called to do good things, not because of some
> altruistic impulse (although I am not sure of the origin of such impulses in
> atheists-- perhaps they are from God?)
I didn't notice anyone point this out, but here's the problem I have with
that. Where's the humanity? What happened to free will? If the impulse to do
good comes from God, does that mean that humans are incapable of wanting to
do good on their own? How about the impulse to do ill? Does that come from
the Devil? From ourselves? From God?
If they come from the Devil, now humans have no impulses. To me, that wipes
us clean of responsibility. We're just tools with which God and the Devil
duke it out.
If evil impulses come from ourselves, well, isn't that just saying that God
created us that way and that as inadvertently as you said above, that evil
impulses are his will too? And therein lies the greatest banality for myself
since we become more or less playthings for God, without free will at all,
simply thrown to positive or negative implulse as God sees fit.
Aha, but you would say that although these IMPULSES come from outside
ourselves, it is our free will that CHOOSES which it shall obey, and therein
lies our human side!
But my response to that is that we've just pushed the issue out further. The
definition of good is no longer to commit good actions, but to choose in
favor of good actions and not evil ones. And to that end, where does the
impulse come from to choose good over evil? And why is it better to do so?
Is it based on personal reward? (going to heaven?) If so, I would argue that
such a thing presents humans as evil creatures, since they shall only choose
to act well insofar as it benefits themselves!
And really, there's a big problem. If we choose good over evil for self
benefit (going to heaven, at the expense of earthly delights) and evil over
good for self benefit (earthly gratification at the expense of heaven), how
is choosing one or the other really different? Is it not simply a decision
on the part of the particular human as to which he would prefer, earthly
pleasure or heavenly pleasure? Can you prove that all humans would prefer
heaven over carnality? Can you prove that steak tastes better than green beans?
Anyway, my issue is that according to that philosophy, is either there is no
free will, or there is no absoloute good.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
| (...) I don't understand how "altruism in animals" is different than an instinct of cooperation, compromise, etc. I guess I'm saying that I think only sentient beings who have free will (or the illusion of it-- different debate, but I digress) are (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
