Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes
Message-ID: <1094@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Aug-85 22:31:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1094
Posted: Sun Aug  4 22:31:55 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 02:18:56 EDT
References: <473@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 84

In article <473@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:

>>...  But since Rich is claiming that personal
>>desire is the justification for this system, aren't these dissenters 
>>perfectly justified in rejecting his system?  Rich's morality seems to
>>apply only to those people who agree that it is true!  It is not
>>universal.  This seems to hamstring it severely.

>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.

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.  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.

>>This depends entirely on the basis for the system.  If you claim that the
>>system is prexisting and does not depend on assent, than this is
>>clearly true.  But Rich is saying that his system arises out of assent to
>>his notion about cooperation; therefore his system is only valid for those
>>people who agree with Rich's principle.

>Again, one may decide that mutual cooperation is best for society, while
>choosing not to abide by such a principle. (Criminals are quite happy to
>run to the courts when it suits them.)

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.  

>>Perhaps so, but there can be no moral onus on those who believe that 
>>cooperation is not advantageous.

>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.

>>Well, Webster's definition [of "human nature"] will do:

>>    "the complex of fundamental dispositions and traits of man"

>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.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe

 "What about all that talk about changing future events, the space-time
  continuum?"

 "Well, I figured, what the heck."