🚀 go-pugleaf

"Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:

> Phillip Lord <plord@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:okwvoq9hg7.fsf@proline.sbc.man.ac.uk...
> 
> ...
> 
> >   Bill> Leaving those particular definitions aside, one can make a
> >   Bill> good case that attempting to convince someone of something you
> >   Bill> know is not true - or which you know is a grey area with
> >   Bill> unstated disputing arguments - it at least dubious from an
> >   Bill> ethical standpoint, at least if you present it as a belief you
> >   Bill> yourself hold instead of something which is clearly a
> >   Bill> political statement.

Actually, this has been a subject of considerable debate in philosophy at
least since Plato.  In the Republic, Plato has Socrates advocating that the
rulers of the just society (philosophers, of course) should create a religion
for the unwashed to believe in, so that they will be virtuous even when no one
is looking.  

Something very similar constitutes one of the main Christian arguments for the
existence of God: If there is no God, than it is illogical to be concerned
about the well-being of anyone but yourself.  You care about others only to
the extent that such caring serves your own self interest. (Ayn Rand, anyone?)  
If you feel instinctively that this can't be right, this can only be because
there is something more important than yourself to which you owe service.

Please don't mistake this for proselytization.  I'm only pointing out that
this is an old argument, and like most old arguments, it has some pretty smart
adherents on both sides.

-- 
Jeff Hallman          jhallman@frb.gov