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