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!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: What is morality anyways?
Message-ID: <1483@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 16:25:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1483
Posted: Mon Aug 12 16:25:42 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 23:08:28 EDT
References: <341@aero.ARPA>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 81

> Isn't morality a framework for deciding Good=Right=The-Thing-to-Do vs.
> Evil=Bad=Wrong=The-Thing-Not-to-Do?
> 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.]
> 
> Is this all?  It's a pretty simple system, as is.  Of course, *IN*REALITY*,
> the problem with morality is how to make that 'mapping' from an action to
> {good, evil}.  There are other questions ...
> 
> Does morality include the punishment for immoral behavior?  I think that is
> separate from the system.  Some moral systems include them; some don't. 
> [CHRIS WARACK]

Punishment is only a necessity for punitive moralities, i.e. those that believe
that punishment is what is warranted when the morality is not adhered to.

> 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.]

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.

> 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.

> But it seems to be as much a moral system as the Judeo-Christian system;
> albeit simpler and untested.

Its simplicity is a virtue, I would think.  As for its untestedness, it may
never get its chance, as long there are those who feel there MUST be
arbitrary restrictions against human beings.

> Does a morality have to have a wide {universal?} acceptance or application to
> validate it as a morality?  It seems that Charlie has said that a moral 
> system that doesn't account for those who do not suscribe to it directly is
> not a moral system.  Why is that necessary?  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.

> 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?  Now here is where the problems start.  I don't have any clear
> ideas on these questions, [although I do have some murky ones].  Any ideas?
> I do think that Rich's morality is actually pretty decent.

Thank you.  It's not exactly an original idea, but I think it's one whose
time has come.

> 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.
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr