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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack
From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: What is morality anyways?
Message-ID: <341@aero.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 17:43:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: aero.341
Posted: Thu Aug  8 17:43:53 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Aug-85 02:22:34 EDT
Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734))
Organization: The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 81

[ouch]

Recently a lot of discussion in this newsgroup has touched on morality.  It
seems that people have used it indiscrimanently; everyone has a different
meaning for it.  So, what is this morality stuff?

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.]

Next step -- so an action maps to good or evil.  A person acting morally
would proceed with a good action, and avoid an evil action.  If he didn't,
he would be acting immorally.  Correct?

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

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.

Everyone has a morality as defined above.  Some may be quite complex; some
may [forgive me again] reduce to: every action is GOOD.  I think that these
could even be studied [perhaps using scientific method :-)].  Published
moralities (e.g. Judeo-Christian) are perscriptions for developing an
individual morality.  People can definitely influence one another's moral
'rules'.

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.

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].

In any case, I've been confused recently by the many conflicting uses of
morality.  I'd like to see some feedback on the subject [seperate from free
will and the emporor's clothes.]

For your consideration,
Chris

*A decision must be made by the individual.  Even if he is told to do
something and uses that as the basis for his actions, he must determine
whether to act or not.  Any morality but his own cannot make a difference in
this, except maybe to judge him [but only after he has made a determination.]
-- 
 _______
|/-----\|    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
 ^^^ ^^^  `---------(|=