Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!wex From: wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Morality among the crocodiles Message-ID: <850@ittvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 15-Jul-83 10:07:50 EDT Article-I.D.: ittvax.850 Posted: Fri Jul 15 10:07:50 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 15-Jul-83 15:43:36 EDT References: ihuxn.290 Lines: 33 I really seem to be failing to get my point across. Let me give it one more (short) shot: I make several claims (see preceding articles for arguments; i don't want to repeat them here): 1) The Golden Rule is not usable as a basis for morality. 2) Neither is it a useful instruction when considering the 'best interests' of a person. Only the person can say what his own best interests are. Morality is an attempt to legislate things that are thought to be in the best interests of all. See point 1. 3) Doing what is moral may be contrary to the best interests of the party concerned, and vice versa. You cannot say that one or the other (of morality / best interests) is more important in all cases. 4) Absolute morality is doomed to failure. If Kant couldn't do it, what makes you think you have a better idea? (Note, this is not intended as derogatory, merely to indicate that I have studied the works of some of the greatest moralists of all time, and if you have a better theory, please explain it.) 5) Without non-moral goods existing, there CANNOT be moral goods. 6) The only common non-moral goods I can find are those that promote survival. This leads to: 7) Is a person who does not care about his own survival required to be moral? If so, by what theory do you say this? This is actually longer than I intended, so I'll stop here. I don't think I have any answers, folks, just a whole lot of questions. --Alan Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex