Gene:
I am going to trust you when you tell me that these are their motivations,
though you were not nearly so kind to Mr. Bell when he told the
motivations of Mr. Ruiz and company and you asked him to prove it to
you. Doesn't this acceptance make discussions more pleasant?
Pleasant perhaps. But pleasantry and relevancy are often exchanged in
favor of eachother. Indeed I cannot prove or disprove my grandparent's
motivations.
Gene: My question is this: How did your grandparents reach by observation
the
idea in the equality of all people. By observation, I conclude that many
people are less intelligent than I (on the basis of IQ tests and aptitude
exams). So we are not equal in that. I am also much stronger than most
people.
It is not that people are not different but that these differences should
not be reasons for these people to be treated differently by them or
society. So when I stated that they believed in equality they believed
that people should be treated equally.
Gene: I regularly lift weights. I have squatted over 400 pounds and
bench pressed over 350 pounds. Thus I am superior to many of my fellows
in strength. Now why should I, superior mentally and physically in many
ways, not leave weaker people to fend for themselves? How can I develop a
philosophy not based on mere feelings (feelings change) but on hard,
observable facts, that says I *ought* to take care of those dumber and
weaker than me?
hard observable facts ? What if you become ill and require help in the
future ?
Perhaps it is mere self preservation to strive for equality for all ? Why
is the wightlifter's philosophy of selfishness a viable philosophy since
it not based on observable facts but feelings as well ?
Gene: (Note that I am being purposefully argumentative just for
the sake of discussion. Forgive the tone, I really do think we *should*
care for others whether weaker or stronger, but I don't think you agree
with my reasons as you would say they were circular, being derived from
the Bible)
Since there are others who do not require a bible to be self sacrificing
my suggestion is that perhaps religion is not a necessary requirement for
such acts ? Perhaps religion states what is observed in nature, that
selfless acts might be benificial if not for oneself then for society in
which one's off spring has to fend for itself.
Pim:
> Perhaps humans and animals alike have instincts and choices ?
Gene: We have no observational evidence that animals have choices.
Which would include us then ? But absence of evidence is not proof of
absence. We might just not have recognized what choices animals have.
Gene: The only observational evidence we have for human choice is
internal--the
subjective realization that we can choose to do one thing or another in a
given situation. I think that B.F. Skinner argued that we really have no
choices either and it is merely an illusion. Of course, I don't see why I
should believe him because he didn't have any choice but to think that.
So we might not have choises either ? Neither animal nor human has choices
? Mere instincts only ?
> Gene: Yes. My question is how does Marxism, from its foundational
> assumptions,
> arrive at the moral obligation to help the needy.
>
> Does not marxism believe in equality for all ?
Gene: Yes, but I want to know how it reached this conclusion in the
*teeth* of
all evidence against it. Observation will tell you that people aren't
equal.
Exactly that is why Marxism believes that all should be treated equally.
There are people who are less able to fend for themselves but who can
contribute in other ways to society.
Pim:
> So being with your God would be important to you. What if you believed
> that you needed some effort to be allowed this privilege ?
Gene: Traditional Christian theology has *always* maintained (and
officially
condemned Pelagiansim) that you *cannot* do anything to merit this
"priviledge" and it is solely a function of God's grace.
So even being a christian is not a necessity ?
Gene: It also maintains that the nature of God's grace will *incline* you
to do good things. All a person can do is accept or reject or say "wait a
minute, I
need to think some more"
So no matter what God will accept you the way you are ? So is there hell ?
Or is this just to scare the people into behaving well ?
Regards
Pim