>And if he went to any
>current, fashionable college he might continue, "Life is material only. I'm
>not accountable to anybody. We all die, and that's it. So I don't care what
>you or anybody else 'feels.' I'm gonna blow away this guy because I can get
>the money, and that will make ME feel good. And that's all I care about."
I wonder, Jim, if you aren't ascribing an unrealistic level of intellectual
justification activity to the murderer. All that's needed to bring about a
murder is a sufficient degree of selfishness, a sufficient lack of moral
and/or physical restraints, and the physical means. While people debate in
academic settings whether evolution says human life is without worth, I
don't believe most criminals incorporate it into their thinking.>>
I had hoped my rather outlandish example would be seen as making philosophic,
rather than realistic, point. Obviously, I was much too subtle (something I'm
not often guilty of).
Here is what I mean to convey. A materialistic world view is the standard in
the academy. This is where the intellectual side of the debate takes place.
However, this view filters down to society at large, through various means,
primarily in the making of public policy. In any event, our hypothetical
robber need not have consciously absorbed the nuances of the professors. It is
sufficient that he grows up believing this world is all there is and there is
no eternal accountability, etc., etc. He acts in accord with those beliefs,
even though he is not going through a process of conscious justification any
greater than "If I don't get caught, it's all OK."
Francis Schaeffer always said, "Ideas have consequences." It doesn't matter if
the ideas are explored in fancy journals or merely accepted on ghetto streets.
There will be consequences all the same.
Jim