Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!amdahl!gam
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Where to morals come from?
Message-ID: <608@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 20:26:43 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.608
Posted: Wed Nov 28 20:26:43 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 07:47:55 EST
References: <58@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 33

> = Ken "Keep chargin'" Arndt
> 
> [ originally "To Andy Banta" ]
>
> Can you explain to me why you are not caught in your own web?  That is, you
> set out rules on who to tolerate and who not to tolerate.  But why should we
> follow YOUR rules?  "those who hurt only themselves are ok or those who hurt
> others are not"  I mean who are YOU to say what is right and what is wrong?
> 
> You God?  You got the bomb? You got 51% on your side?
> 
> Where DO morals come from?  You seem to be saying you can tell but why THOSE 
> morals and not others?  Nature seems to say it's ok to hurt others in the
> effort to survive, doesn't it?  Is Nature a source of values?  Is reason?
> Is wishes?  Is Tradition?  Is Andy Banta?

B F Skinner (my hero) said morals and morality are characteristics of
a particular culture, and their purpose is to ensure the survival of
that culture.  They are, if you will, the defense mechanism that
maintains cultural identity.

So to say that "Thus and such is (morally) wrong" is to say "Thus and
such is detremental or harmful to (will cause to change) my culture."
Note that this is entirely relative.  Human sacrifice in religious
ceremonies was morally right to the Aztecs, and to disallow this would
be to take part of their culture away.  Unfortunately, Cortez took all
of it away.

Do not confuse "culture" with "civilization."
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam

37 22'50" N / 122 59'12" W	[ This is just me talking. ]