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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack
From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Definitions of Morality
Message-ID: <374@aero.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 19:30:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: aero.374
Posted: Mon Aug 19 19:30:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 04:51:06 EDT
Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734))
Organization: The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 36

[ouch]
OK, the morality discussion is heating up a bit.  I wish to take a
moment to solidify some basic concepts [at least in my view].  I have
some definitions that *I* will use in my postings.  If others wish to
also, fine.  If anyone wishes to discuss definitions, respond to this
article, not others.

MORAL -- a mechanism for determining whether an action is OK or not.

PERSONAL MORALS -- the set of morals that is actually used by an
	individual to determine his/her actions.

GROUP MORALS -- a set of morals that are common to a set of people.

UNIVERSAL MORALS -- A set of morals that is meant to apply to everyone.
	[whether they do or don't; whether they are enforced or not]

ABSOLUTE MORALS -- THE set of morals that is RIGHT.  [take with a grain
	of salt.  May or may not exist]

I'm not arguing for or against the *existence* of any of these, here.  I
just want to clarify some terminology a bit.  If anyone disagrees with
these, please note so in responses to me.

I do wish to avoid the verbal knots of other recent discussions.

Chris
-- 
 _______
|/-----\|    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
 ^^^ ^^^  `---------(|=