Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <1542@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 18:20:40 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1542 Posted: Sun Aug 18 18:20:40 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:17:48 EDT References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1483@pyuxd.UUCP> <364@aero.ARPA> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 84 >>>The Judeo-Christian morality [if you will] in the overall picture promises >>>eternal life to those who lead moral lives, and eternal damnation for those >>>who do not. [Whether this promise is fulfilled is a discussion for another >>>group.] [WARACK] >>The impositional version of this morality states that 1) this morality should >>be taught to and adhered to by all, and 2) that suitable (?) punishments in >>this world may be discovered in the Bible. [ROSEN] > This is but one way of looking at it. I don't think the majority of > Christians truly believe it. In fact, I don't think the majority of > Christians would even SAY it. [WARACK] On the other hand, many modern neo-Nazis don't SAY that they hate certain groups in a bigoted sort of way. Enough Christians do believe this such that we have reason to fear the imposition of such a morality in this country. >>>Rich has proposed a moral system based on the [forgive me] function: >>> if {I desire it} and {It does not infringe on the rights of others} >>> then GOOD >>> else EVIL >>>This system doesn't include any means of punishment. >>It doesn't require one. The notion that there should or must be a >>"punishment" for disobeying a moral statute is a sign of a very disturbed >>society. Only if persistent attempts at serious re-education fail should >>the "transgressor" simply be removed from society (imprisoned). The reason >>NOT being to "administer punishment" (which seems to be a goal for some people >>but rather to protect people from this person's anti-human acts. > Then banishment and/or exile would work as well as prison. As I > mentioned earlier, though, this type of thinking requires a 'judge.' > How does he determine the need to remove a 'transgressor?' His own > morals may differ significantly from anyone elses... This is an implementation question, "how do we select judges?". All moral systems are incomplete, they cannot cover everything in written word. In cases where there is conflict, obviously some form of arbitration must occur. >>>The basic goal of a moral >>>system is to determine what to do and not to do ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.* If >>>a large group suscribes to a morality, then life is simpler for that group >>>since they can predict certain things about their neighbor's actions. But, >>>it does not make the morality any more or less valid. Maybe the person with >>>the perfect morality is the only one who suscribes to it. >>Hear, hear! Charles' bogus arguments about the "failures" of minimal >>morality apply just as much to his own system (whatever that is -- he >>keeps denying that any particular brand currently available is his). >>The question then becomes: Which system gives the most to the most people? >>Clearly the one that restricts them the least does that. > However, any number of moralities can be 'least restrictive' even > interpretations of the Christian ones [semi- :-)]. There is still a > question about which gives the most to the most people. Clearly any system that makes arbitrary restrictions of "thou shalt not do this", where "this" is something not involving a negative effect on another person's life, is NOT a candidate for the moral system that does the most for the most people. >>>Morality is also dynamic. It can change rather quickly, in fact. But, of >>>course, the more people who suscribe to the same morality, the slower it >>>changes [at least as a whole]. >>Unfortunately, especially when part of the indoctrination of the existing >>morality is that anything going against that morality is evil. But then, >>I guess all moral systems do this to varying degrees. > Not ALL moral systems do this. I guess most of them do though. It > brings to a head the question of which is evil: the person or his > morality? Some moral systems [Rich's own, for instance] regard anything > 'interfering' = 'going against' as bad. If it regards the person as > evil, then it must rid itself of him somehow. If it is the person's > morals, then should it attempt to convince the person to change his > morals [rehabilitate]? or should it rid itself of the morals by ridding > itself of the person? The first, of course, as much as possible. The society's responsible is NOT to a code of morality but to its members, and it is their protection from such actions as this person has taken that is sought. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr