Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site aero.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack ) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <375@aero.ARPA> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 20:15:56 EDT Article-I.D.: aero.375 Posted: Mon Aug 19 20:15:56 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 04:51:48 EDT References: <341@aero.UUCP> <27500096@ISM780B.UUCP> Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734)) Organization: The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA Lines: 177 Summary: [ouch] >[balter] >I think all personal moral systems are of the form > if {I desire it} > then OK > else not OK Actually, I don't think you do, because you explain what you mean later. >Warack's [actually Warack's formulation of Rosen's philosophy -chris] >formulation above is ultra-simplistic: how do we determine what >a right is? What is an infringement? What happens when people's rights >conflict? Who do we include among "others"?: women, black, gays, mammals, >ants, rocks, ecology, mother earth? If I were to follow the formulation >strictly, I wouldn't be able to act at all. 2500 years ago Greeks >were wondering whether or not they should eat beans because Pythagoras >proscribed it; I would hope that our questions have evolved in depth and >complexity since then. There actually IS a difference between morality and desire. Desire is a basic feeling -- a want for something [such as the sexual fantasies mentioned before]. Morality is more rational. It employs the conscience. An action may have roots in desire, but it must be filtered through a person's morals before he can determine whether or not it is OK. Actually someone may have the ultra-simplistic morals if {I desire it} then it is OK. I think it is obvious that this person couldn't function in society unless ... he never had a desire that conflicted with another's. >How is one morality better than another? This is probably the real issue. >What makes one morality better? How is that judged? Is there a perfect >morality? >[wingate] >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. >[balter] >How can you use a loaded term like strength and then say it doesn't constitute >a measure of merit? NT morality is more constraining than Rich's, period. >I would suggest that a group morality is better in some sense if it closely >aligns with the personal moralities of the members of the group, and given >two moralities with the same level of alignment the one which is *less* >constraining would be preferable. As for personal moralities, they are not >simply chosen, they are *acquired*. Now, one could choose to alter one's >personal morality (we're back to wanting to want). But what it should be >changed to, what is "better", depends uopn the goal. The goal might be: >to better better liked, to be more like others, be wealthier, to live longer, >etc. These goals can certainly be furthered by changing one's moral posture. >But which is better? There is only an absolute good if you select one. >If you can prove that P is good, I assure you that you have assumed that >P is good somewhere along the line, or you didn't prove it. Definite conflict of personal morals here. Maybe someone feels that the more constraining system is preferrable??? There is some interesting insight into proof of goodness here. To inductively prove that something is good. There has to be something good to begin with. Then there has to be a method to show that because that is true, it is likely that the next is true, and so on. To deductively prove it; there again has to be something that has good in it. And either a way to show how this transfers to the object in question or how it has the qualities necessary to infer good. Does anyone know how to do this without postulating 'good' somewhere along the line??? >[wingate] >Almost any system which is based on the maximization of some good provides a >basis for an absolute morality (even Rich's). If one looked at all of >history, and were sufficiently wise, one could perceive what the optimal thing >to do in any situation would be. This, I submit, forms an absolute for that >moral system. This absolute is of course obscure to us, and you can go on >at great length about whether it implies anything at all. >[balter] >By absolute, you seem to mean able to provide a judgement in all situations. >Aside from questioning that (there is no order relation for goodness), I must >point out that "absolute morality" normally means one which is held as being >the ONE TRUE MORALITY, having a preferred place in the order of things over >other claimed moralities, and therefore setting down in absolute fashion what >is right or wrong. Relativists hold that notions of absolute right or wrong >are semantically empty; even if some big bad bugger in the sky will zap me if >I disobey his law, it is still only right or wrong from *his* point of view. >But mostly it is humans with circular arguments demanding that I obey *their* >morality. OK This is the difference between 'relativists' and 'absolutists.' Although it is possible for a RIGHT one to exist without a 'big bad bugger.' [Maybe its imbedded in the structure of the universe] I have no evidence either for or against. It's plausible though. >[wingate] >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. >[balter] >Lack of understanding of an arbitrary dogma as interpreted by you? >So what? Pre-existing good? That *your* god has access to? Give me a break. >I claim to have access to the *true* good; yours is a false version. >Prove me wrong. Prove him wrong. Arguments about this won't go anywhere. Either of you MIGHT be right about there being an absolute good. I must admit, though, that Charley has given the best argument I've seen for a reason to abide by biblical 'morality.' >Aside from all the other inconsistencies and foolishes expressed by the >above, let me concentrate on one that is highly illustrative of the subject >at hand: what about those that argue that Christian morality is *not* >universal *only* for Christians (just how can it be "universal" if it isn't >Universal, hmmm?)? Those who consider keeping organized (a key word; >individual prayer is allowed) prayer out of the schools to be an immoral, >Godless, devil-inspired goal? They are clearly acting morally, from their >point of view. Thus they cannot be *flatly* wrong, only wrong from your (and >my, BTW) POV. If they claimed that the earth was flat, then we can argue >that they are flatly (heh heh) wrong on the basis of empirical evidence. >No such basis is available when arguing moral issues. If you believe in an absolute morality, why cannot they be '*flatly* wrong.' The basis for arguing moral issues MIGHT exist. I do agree that we don't have it in our hands now [at least knowingly]. I don't think it is fair to say no such basis exists. >[wingate] >(Note that this doesn't absolve Rich of having to follow his own >morality!) >[balter] >Here we have that fundamental misunderstanding of what morality is. >Absolve? Have to? What do these words mean in this context? >What happens if Rich proclaims a morality and then fails to follow it? >Will a big thunderbolt labeled "morality enforcement" strike him dead? >Morality is a codification of the behaviors that an individual or group >finds good or bad, where good and bad are primitive (mathematical >sense) concepts related to desired and undesired behaviors. >Rich may establish a general rule of good and bad, perform an action, >and then decide the action was bad within his rules. Depending upon whether >his emotional response to the action is that it really is good or really >is bad, he is likely to either modify his rules to allow that behavior as >acceptable, or feel guilt and attempt to reorient himself in a way such >that he won't perform the action again (from mental scolding to hara kiri); >or it is possible that he will actually enjoy having performed the action >and intend to repeat it, in which case his "morality" is a charade, >perhaps borrowed from his community (cf. previous discussion about Hell's >Angels) and his true inner morality is somewhat different. >In the same way, a group's true morality may be different than what is >professed in official dogma; examples are boundless. This seems to me to be a much more thorough understanding behind personal morality than stated at the beginning of the discussion. I'm going to attempt to restate these points as I take them. A personal morality is an individual's mechanism for determining what is desired or undesired behavior [for himself]. A person may change his behavior to abide by his morality. He may also decide that his morality is flawed and change it. He may present one morality to others while following another himself. Morality is intrinsic in causing guilt. For your consideration, Chris -- _______ |/-----\| Chris Warack (213) 648-6617 ||hello|| || || warack@aerospace.ARPA |-------| warack@aero.UUCP |@ ___ | seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest! |_______| sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack || || \ Aerospace Corporation, M1-117, El Segundo, CA 90245 ^^^ ^^^ `---------(|=