"Rationality as Moralism"

To: egoism@topica.com
Subject: Re: Keyes vs Dershowitz
From: David McDivitt 
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:23:48 -0800

You may have a point. If not for the intransigence of fundamental religionists, the ones here and Moslems, we might already have a one world government. They fight to retain a particular identity which is in contrast to the one globalists seek to impose. Though not religious myself, and though I do not seek to share in their sense of identity, I support this diversity. A down side of course is the potential violence of religion, and the manner in which reasoning becomes so narrow any form of extremism is justified. I do not see how a meta level can be realized which would reduce this. On the one hand diversity is good. It is good intellectually as well as biologically. When diversity leads to violence however, it can only be seen as a natural byproduct of that diversity. Supporting diversity which leads to immanent bloody conflict is an ethical paradox which cannot be resolved, if statements of peace alone disarm people against tyranny and domination.

Evolution seems the answer, as people become rational enough to resolve conflict through intellectual discourse. The only way ethics can be applied therefore, is to do those things which increase rationalism among men. Any ethical statement other than this can only serve to support one identity over another, and actions to further such identities, leading to imposition and violence.

Rationalism is the only true morality.

>From: Kenneth Allen Hopf
>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 13:17:09 -0800
>DM>One argument had validity, and that was the utilitarian nature he [Alan
>>Keyes] attributed to religion. I do not agree it represents sufficient
>>cause to "be religious" or even "believe in God", but it did offer a
>>functional use for religion.
>Yes; that's what I thought as well. While I agreed mainly with Dershowitz,
>one should not underestimate the social function of religion that was
>emphasized by Keyes. I know people today who simply are not in a position
>to spend time on philosophical analysis, or who simply are not interested.
>Some of them would have to work a good long time in order to acquire any
>substantial understanding of the issues. Even then, I'm not convinced that
>they could make substantial progress. And if they did, it might well
>involve some highly damaging detours, events that they might not easily
>recover from. This is the main reason I don't run around beating religious
>types over the head about their beliefs. I share many (but not all) of
>their values. I invariably reject their theology. Of course, you have to
>defend your freedom when these people step over the line, as they often do
>(and as Dershowitz did). But my deeper fear is that reasoned debate will
>just leave them confused, and that this may have far more damaging
>consequences than their current state of mind.

Return to things I've written

egoism, religion, atheism, codependency, selfishness, collectivism, mailing, SOC-FIX, FreeWare, software, science, philosophy, cooking, recipe, ethics, morality, ethic, moral, debate