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!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack ) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <357@aero.ARPA> Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 20:06:47 EDT Article-I.D.: aero.357 Posted: Wed Aug 14 20:06:47 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 01:44:42 EDT References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1189@umcp-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734)) Organization: The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA Lines: 107 [ouch] >>Chris Warack >Charley Wingate >>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?" O.K. I have problems with exactly how 'want' ties into all of this so I may break this restriction later. >>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? [Deletion of some discussion on punishment and Rosen's morality] >>Does a morality have to have a wide {universal?} acceptance or application to >>validate it as a morality? It seems that Charley [ed] 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. It is true that by this definition of universal morality that Rich's system would fail to reach universality. This is simply because Rich's system advocates non-interference, thus no 'expectation' that others will follow it, thus it fails by definition. Why is a universal system necessary? What are the consequences of someone not living up to the 'expectations' of the universal systems? If there are none, then how do they differ from personal systems which have a mass appeal? If there are real consequences, how are they dealt with? This would probably imply some sort of judge. Except for a super-natural judge [i.e. God], who could have the ability to really 'judge' another? This is one of my biggest problems with the discussion of morality. I don't think it is possible for there to be a truly universal system of morality which does not include some sort of perfect judge. This judge then decides whether you have been moral or immoral -- when? I don't know. In a more day-to-day existence, I don't see 'complete' universal moralities. Total morality is on a personal basis. No matter who or what proclaims something good or evil, unless a person believes it himself, he isn't/won't act it. Coercion might force a person to act other than he believes. For instance, the threat of jail might prevent someone from hitchhiking on the freeway even if he believes it is OK to do so. What is universal are certain issues which involve others. For instance, it's wrong to kill another human being. Yet, even in some instances such obvious rules as this are questioned. Some people think war is moral -- it certainly involves the death of other humans. Some people advocate the death penalty. So even these universal morals have grey areas that must be incorporated into an individual morality. I guess the importance of all of this is in perspective. A 'universal system' is very incomplete. It only provides a framework on which people build there on rules. Some parts are incorporated into the personal system, some are thrown out. I propose that whatever develops is a complete moral system -- it has to be in order for that person to decide what is right or wrong. This system is unassailable externally. Only that person can make changes to it. How willing they are to make changes depends on how open-minded they are. Can WE judge another person's morals? I don't think so. If they act in ways that interfere with anothers morals, then a conflict exists. It may be resolved through reason, intervention or force depending on the morals of the parties involved. If you think about it, isn't this the way things happen. The web becomes more tangled when people announce one set of morals and follow another. Why isn't more energy focused on understanding morals on a personal level? Almost all discussion revolves around 'universal systems' that only provide the foundation of these things. Even if Rich's system is incomplete, I find it appealing because it approaches morals at a personal level. One of the problems I find with advocating a morality for everyone is that it is used as an excuse for actions 'good and bad.' If morality is moved to a personal level, it stresses personal responsibility as well. [Remainder is followed-up in a seperate article] -- _______ |/-----\| 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 ^^^ ^^^ `---------(|=