Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site ahuta.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxj!houxm!ahuta!lzpfc!dsc From: dsc@lzpfc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: re: Morality and Democracy Message-ID: <256@ahuta.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Dec-84 13:21:24 EST Article-I.D.: ahuta.256 Posted: Thu Dec 20 13:21:24 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Dec-84 02:14:39 EST Sender: mig@ahuta.UUCP Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 33 > > Abortion is very clearly a matter of much more subjective morality than > slavery. And that's the difference, plain and simple. > > How do we define objective morality? It's tough, but I think we must > start from a passive state - which is to say we allow things that don't > infringe on the desires of others, and only disallow things when there > is a very clear large (like >90%) majority that want it. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Well Brad, what you seem to want is morality by democracy, so that if we all got together and decided *whatever* and we all agreed (90 %), it would be moral. In ancient societies (egyptian and polynesian) incest (marrying of sisters to brothers) and consequently killing deformed infants was the way of life. Other societies burnt their first-born-sons alive. Since all the members of those societies agreed to *whatever*, you're moral codes would say that those where moral acts. A differing view is that religion and/or experience shows us what is moral. Slavery was always immoral, it did not become immoral when society decided to admit it as immoral. Dave Chechik (houxq or pegasus)!lzpfc!dsc AT&T Information Systems Labs Lincroft, NJ