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!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <1189@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 11-Aug-85 12:20:47 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1189 Posted: Sun Aug 11 12:20:47 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Aug-85 04:06:35 EDT References: <341@aero.ARPA> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 94 In article <341@aero.ARPA> warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734)) writes: >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.] I think it's reasonable to include the restriction that we consider only those systems which actually attempt to deal with the question of "Why shouldn't I do what I want to do?" >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? >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. This is a serious oversimplification of almost any Christian system. I'll go into more detail further along. 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. This is a serious misunderstanding of my position. There are two basic classes of moral systems: personal and universal. Personal systems are what you come up with for yourself. They bind only upon you. Universal systems, on the other hand, include the expectation that others will follow the moral code. I can see how Rich's system is a personal code for himself, but it seems to me that the way he attempts to get to universality is flawed. The principles he appeals to simply are not universal; if they were, then there would be no criminal behavior. >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. 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. >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]. I don't think this is correct. Some systems have absolute morality which is unchanging. Others have absolutes whose implications for action change. Still others have absolutes the perceptions of which change. 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. 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. (Note that this doesn't absolve Rich of having to follow his own morality!) C Wingate