[89] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
RE: LIVING WAGE SIT-IN AT HARVARD (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Prez H. Cannady)
Fri Apr 20 09:25:33 2001
Message-Id: <200104201324.JAA06806@melbourne-city-street.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:21:22 -0400
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
From: "Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <BLEJJJDGNEIJGAGOJNHNOEHCCMAA.jdseale@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 04:43 AM 4/20/01 , Josiah D. Seale wrote
>
>No, not necessarily prejudice. That depends on your definition. Sourav and
>Zhe are both being consistent with their belief systems, and Zhe has
>realized this and is stating such.
That consistency could be a practical setback. Consistency
in any ideology generally implies inability to deconstruct
and reform beliefs on the basis of added information (say
if I had never read the last few chapters in each gospel
and none of the letters and the none of the Messianic prophecies,
then maybe I wouldn't know about the resurrection -- somebody
might want to clue me in eventually.
I would say in both Zhe and Sourav's cases that they are
strongly familiar and passionate about their beliefs, but
consistent is a padded insult to both.
>Without a higher being, there is no reason to follow morals beyond your own
>convenience.
Disagree. As theists, we generally accept that God instills in
us a capacity for moral behavior. If God does not exist, then
morality as we view does not. The atheist version of morality
falls from a set of complex contracts within societies governing
collective behavior. It surprises me that Objectivists can be
atheists, given their opposition to collective behavior in face
of Sourav's comments on intregrity (the ability to deal squarely
instead of at your advantage) and pride (a feel good quality).
>Be nice until killing someone will get you lots of money, and then kill that
>person (if you can get away with it).
Exactly. Unfortunately, society isn't set up in many
situations where you can do that. An Objectivist
who finally rejects morality based on his rejection
of social values and collective behavior MUST achieve
the point where he's capable of anything for immediate
self-gratification given a favorable cost-benefit
analysis over the long term.
>If you do have a higher being that you
>are attempting to please, this adds an incentive to do what you think is in
>line with this being's nature.
Disagree. The desire to "do right" is a quality of the
divine being instilled in mankind. The desire to "do
right" isn't in anticipation of reward, but merely a
quality of belief. The notion of incentive is inappropiate
here.
>Why should I "do unto" anyone else what I would want them to "do unto me"?
Because an Objectivist lives in a world of Golden Rule followers.
If he wants what he wants, he's gotta pay a price according to
the rules set by his society.
Rev Prez
* * *
Presley H. Cannady
Acting Chairman, College Republicans
CR Website <http://web.mit.edu/republicans/www/>
<Personal>-----------<"It's The Militia" - Freddie Foxx>-----
<revprez@mit.edu>-<http://web.mit.edu/revprez/www/resume.pdf>
410 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02139 -- (617) 225 8420
<Hip Hop>---<"The pragmatic understates it" - Rev Prez>------------>
Platinum Playaz Productions---------<Site Comin' Soon, Dunnz>
Rev Prez "The G.O.D. Rhymez v.3"-<http://www.mp3.com/revprez>
<------REMIX and the Central Region Freestylin Alliance------------>
<"You got below average intelligence and poor penmanship" - Canibus>
