----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 2:55 PM Subject: Re: The Prospect on the Future of the Democrats
> > Recognition of the present as the only observable reality. I don't > torture nuns because I would not like it if someone were to torture me. That's a reflection of "do onto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love your neighbor as yourself." It's a sound ethical principal that I see based in the value of every other human. > It's a mature perspective called empathy, which I don't have to be > drubbed into by fear of a wrathful deity. I agree it is a good, ethical perspective, and no one does not have to be a deist to belive in the rights of other humans...that those rights are just as important as one's own. But, there are tremendous problems in deducing human rights from principals of biology, for example. And, there are other perspectives that exist. Objectivism, for example, touts that caring for others is misguided; the only true virtue is selfishness. Post Modernism argues that ideas like human rights are simply political tools to get other people to do what you want...as can be seen in Disciplne and Punish by Foucault. Marxist analysis indicates that individual rights are a bourgeois construct. It appears that, although we disagree on many things, we agree that human beings have inherent rights. I would make a further statement. It is wrong for young skinheads to go on wildings and beat up gay men. Even if they can get away with it; it is wrong...it is immoral. > Since this life is the only one any of us gets (solid assumption; there > is zero evidence to the contrary), it would be pretty shabby of me to > set out to make others' lives miserable, or bring them to premature > ends, wouldn't it? But, if it was to one's advantage, why not? What other reason besides the understanding that it is the wrong thing to do? Because the people stepped upon on to gain an advantage are just as important as the person who contemplates the stepping. Rand and Foucault disagree with this. A Marxist analysis would only consider this valid if it is part of class warfare. The very idea of the rights of individual members of the other classes would be at odds with the reality of the historical dielectic. Nietchiez calls it "a slave's moralty" and considers it a source of weakness. So, this is not a viewpoint that has universal acceptance. > That's the short-form answer to the question of why atheists aren't all > thieving psychotic murderous drooling perverts. That's not my point. It was that the lack of fear of damnation for born again Christians, or the belief in forgiveness by other Christians does not create thieving psychotic murderous drooling perverts any more than atheism does. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
