Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <1604@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 01:07:11 EDT Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1604 Posted: Wed Aug 14 01:07:11 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 07:27:37 EDT References: <341@aero.ARPA> Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 87 Summary: In article <341@aero.ARPA> warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734)) writes: >In an absolute sense, a moral system could be viewed as a mathematical >function M from actions into the set {good, evil}. A perfect moral system >would map every action. [I'm not suggesting that such a system exists.] Would you consider allowing three categories? Instead of {good, evil}, I would suggest {required, optional, forbidden}. The vast majority of behaviour seems to belong to the "optional" category. >Next step -- so an action maps to good or evil. A person acting morally >would proceed with a good action, and avoid an evil action. If he didn't, >he would be acting immorally. Correct? > >Is this all? ... I've been toying with the idea that morality is *less* than this. In our day-to-day lives we're constantly confronted with this decision: What will I do next? I prefer to define the idea of morality in terms of the grounds on which these decisions are made. A moral ground for decision-making is some criterion which is independent of your desires, and that you place ahead of your desires in making the decision. (Sacrificing your life for an ideal is often held up as a fine example of moral behaviour.) This definition doesn't imply, and is not meant to imply, that a choice made on other than moral grounds is immoral, or that a moral decision can only be one that goes against your interests. (I think the Objectivists will flame me for the above definition, but this is an honest attempt on my part to determine the *common* meaning of the word "morality". I have no use for Ayn Rand's Humpty-Dumpty-like practice of defining the word "morality" to mean what she wants it to mean. To me, Ayn Rand's moral system appears really to be a denial of morality, disguised, with the help of some specially chosen definitions, in moralistic language.) An important corollary of this is that, since behaviour is classified as moral on the basis of the grounds on which that behaviour was chosen, it is impossible to force people to behave morally. Moral behaviour can only happen by *choice*. The best you can do is arrange rewards and punishments, so that it will be in people's best interests to act the way you want them to. Another interesting corollary is that religious moral systems based on eternal rewards and punishments (eg. Heaven and Hell), are not moral systems at all, because the motivation for good behaviour is based ultimately on self-interest. A third corollary is that, since the person must make the moral decision himself, what is moral behaviour for him is what he feels is moral, not what anybody else thinks is moral. That's right folks, I'm a moral relativist. The fact that I've drawn three highly unpopular conclusions from what I take to be the common conception of morality indicates either that I'm way out in left field, or that the majority of people have failed to think through the consequences of their concept of morality. So far, I have said nothing about what those moral grounds for decision making are. Now I get controversial. As far as I can tell, most people's moral codes are derived entirely from the words of other people. In the case of those people who believe their morals come from God, they are forgetting that it was *other* *people* who told them what God says is moral or immoral, or *other* *people* who told them which book God chose to write down the One True Moral System in. Unfortunately, a lot of these other people disagree with each other. In determining what moral code to believe in, which other people do we end up believing? Usually our parents, our teachers, or whatever *authority* figure is handy. Our morals appear to be ultimately based on appeals to authority. The only ways to arrive at "moral truth", if such a thing exists, are accepting somebody else's word for it (ie. authority), or guessing (intuition). Neither one of these is considered as a reliable way of arriving at any kind of truth. As far as I can tell, there is no way to determine "moral truth". My belief is that there is no such thing as "moral truth". There is no logical or rational reason to put any criterion ahead of self-interest in deciding on your next action. Gosh, I didn't mean to write a dissertation... -- David Canzi Ultimate tabloid headline: "Crazed by UFO radiation, pregnant man bites dog."