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!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Morality: Personal or Not? Message-ID: <1300@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 08:27:44 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1300 Posted: Mon Aug 19 08:27:44 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:35:22 EDT References: <1483@pyuxd.UUCP> <364@aero.ARPA> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 47 >> Rich Rosen > Chris Warack >>> 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 >>> subscribes 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. This is running completely off the track. There seem to be two glaring errors here. The trivial one we can take care of first. My criticism of Rich's basis for his moral system was on entirely different grounds. I am satisfied with the resolution of that discussion (i.e., none at all). What bothers me is that people seem to be incoorectly drawing the conclusion that, because moral systems dictate actions for individuals, that they cannot properly dictate what others should do. Unfortunately, though, almost without exception any real moral system allows for coercive actions; the only exceptions are those which demand absolute pacifism. It follows therefore that all moral systems do in fact have standards of behavior for others besides those who hold the system. Rich's little rhetorical question is therefore quite beside the point. In many moral systems, it is deemed imperative to have the system followed by everyone; such systems demand lots of coercive and persuasive actions to try to keep others in line. Almost every system has as a basis the belief that a certain portion of the population is not competent to make many judgements, moral or otherwise. The real thrust of Rich's question seems to me to be that he tends to value freedom more than almost anything else, for, with a different system, say one that most values conformity, the answer to Rich's question could only be: "Clearly the one which restricts them the most." Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "You want me to make a donation to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary!"