Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: What is morality anyways?
Message-ID: <539@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 20:04:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.539
Posted: Mon Aug 12 20:04:42 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 22:48:18 EDT
References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1189@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 48

> This is a serious misunderstanding of my position.  There are two basic
> classes of moral systems: personal and universal.  Personal systems are
> what you come up with for yourself.  They bind only upon you.  Universal
> systems, on the other hand, include the expectation that others will follow
> the moral code.  I can see how Rich's system is a personal code for himself,
> but it seems to me that the way he attempts to get to universality is flawed.
> The principles he appeals to simply are not universal; if they were, then
> there would be no criminal behavior.

It has been pointed out already that the validity of a moral system does
not rely on its acceptance. All moral systems fail this criterion therefore
it is meaningless to apply it.

> >How is one morality better than another? ...
> 
> I think you can make an evaluation based upon strength (realizing that this
> does not constitute a measure of merit).  The explicit morality of the New
> Testament, for instance, is stronger than Rich's because it includes his
> principles with additional constraints.

This is easier said than demonstrated. I would be interested in your proof.
Also, by your own reasoning the morality of the n.t. cannot be correct since
criminal behaviour exists.

> There seems to be a near total lack of understanding of New Testament morality
> by some readers of this group.  From a pre-existent Good, an absolute of the
> kind described above is seen to exist.  God can in fact know this absolute.
> Therefore the reason we listen to God's laws is NOT simply because he is God,
> but because he is in a position to know and instruct.  Futhermore, it can be
> argued that Christian morality is universal only for Christians.  Therefore
> those who seek (for instance) to bring prayer into public schools are flatly
> wrong.  (Note that this doesn't absolve Rich of having to follow his own
> morality!)
> 
> C Wingate

First you have to prove that there is such a thing as a pre-existent Good
of the form that you describe. Then you must prove that there is such a thing
as god. After doing that you must demonstrate that the god you have in mind
is one and the same as that in the n.t. and so on ...

You say that it can be argued that "christian morality is universal
only for christians". This is meaningless. If this is the case then
Rich's morality, is as universal as your's since his has probably got some
adherents. Incidently I thought that sometime during the discussion
you claimed that your morality was not god based?

Padraig Houlahan.