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