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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes
Message-ID: <1432@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 09:01:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1432
Posted: Wed Aug  7 09:01:04 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 04:22:18 EDT
References: <473@utastro.UUCP> <1094@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 86

>>I don't understand the objection here. Are you trying to tell me that 
>>there is a system that everyone accepts? If so let's hear it. If not, your
>>criticism doesn't carry much weight.  [PADRAIG]

> That isn't the problem.  THe problem is, if you are going to say that "this
> is the moral system to follow", you need to have some justification for
> expecting others to follow it.  But for those people who disagree with Rich's
> rationale for his system, it seems to me that Rich has written away his right
> to  criticize them for not following it.  [WINGATE]

Written away?  For those people who disagree with the notion of the system,
the system will in turn "disagree" with their notions of theft and
interference, at their expense.  There is no "justification" for following it.
Except common sense, good old save your neck common sense.  Which may be why...
(No, I won't say it :-)

> He is saying that the basis for
> his system is the realization that cooperation can "maximize" good.  But a
> person who may recognize that this is true may still prefer to maximize his
> own good at the expense of others.  Since everthing is based on desires, Rich
> has no good reason for taking his viewpoint as the preferred one.  Even if
> his view is the majority, there is nothing preventing the majority from being
> immoral.  Therefore, Rich's morality is strictly personal; you must expect
> it of yourself, but you can't expect it of anyone else.

My god, you're right!!!  There's NOTHING preventing the majority from being
"immoral".  Except, once again, good old common sense.

> Right, but this in fact reinforces my point.  A morality of convenience is
> certainly different from what Rich proposes, but I don't think he has a leg
> to stand on when he condemns it.  

A morality of common sense in the face of groups of cooperating people forming
a society and protecting its interests against interferers.  A "morality of
convenience" sounds fine to me, as long as the "conveniences" don't involve
interfering with the other people in the society, because certainly that will
urge on retribution.

>>True. So what? This has always been the case. If I recall correctly the
>>question was essentially how could someone be condemned by the system based
>>on cooperation.

> No! This is NOT the case!  Any system which sees morality as pre-existing, and
> NOT based on human assent to a principle, allows this kind of determination.
> See, the problem is that Rich has denied himself cooperation as a pre-existent
> Good.  He therefore has no reason to complain when someone else follows a
> system based upon (say) competition.

No, of course not, because the system I propose *is* based on competition, or
on "the strong survive" or stuff like that.  Because the cooperating groups
are stronger than the individuals who seek to take from the system without
recompense and interfere with its members.  One very good reason for not
"coperating" with a "pre-existent god":  we haven't found one yet.  And there
has been no evidence to suggest that there is one other than Charles' desire
to have one to appeal for an ultimate morality.  Your cart is before your
horse.

>>Wait a minute here. You criticized those who defended cooperation, and the
>>"because I like" basis for morality on the grounds that no model
>>of human nature was presented. By your definition of human nature these
>>bases are clearly aspects of human nature.

> Well, let's consider Rich's cooperation principle.  Now you can make two 
> arguments against it (ignoring the validity of those arguments for the 
> moment):
>    (1) Either it doesn't conform to the definition, or
>    (2) It is not sufficiently universal.
> 
> I will grant that Rich's principle passes test (1).  So in a sense I am 
> retracting my previous statement.  I think it's highly questionable whether
> or not it passes (2).  Assuming that a majority are inclined towards 
> cooperation, the minority is certainly still very large.  Even so, I think 
> that, besides a model of human nature, you also need a model of what human
> nature OUGHT to be.  It simply isn't valid to say that "ALL humans should
> cooperate" because "MOST humans want to cooperate"; morality simply isn't
> a ratification of group will.

It isn't?  Oh, yes, that's right, if you've got that cart (god) before your
horse (morality).  There's no requirement that a morality have some universal
appeal, is there.  Only if you presuppose god does that apply, and certainly
not all of us have the need to do that.  What morality needs is a common
sense basis for believing that it is in your interest to stick to it, and that
there are good reasons for having it.  Fini.
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr