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 ^^^ ^^^ `---------(|=