--> Samantha Atkins
> > From: "Reason" <email@example.com>
> > > So without removing a, b, c, you're never going to be able to
> get rid of
> > > religiosity of some form.
> > You may be right. Getting rid of religiosity (I.E., the most
> regressive force
> > now operating in society) may require more drastic measures.
> Religious stuff is not the most regressive force. Thinking you
> have the truth corralled and other people are so out to lunch
> their truths need to be gotten rid of IS the most regressive
> force operating in society.
At what point does altruism overweigh respect for other people's perception
of reality? It's an interesting question, and one that seems to lurk deep
within the problem set for setting up a benevolant anarchy, or even a
functional but more mainstream libertarian society.
If someone believes that they can fly without assistance, is it right and
a) leave them to kill themselves with their "truth" -- thus allowing
evolutionary pressures to produce a fitter society, or
b) force your "truth" on them, thus keeping them alive. With all the
consequences that stem from that.
I don't think that this is such an irrelevant question; large sections of
today's society hold "truths" that contradict basic physics. Is it moral,
ethical, desirable to leave them to these "truths" or does altruism or
selfishness win out?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT