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!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: What is morality anyways?
Message-ID: <1207@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 09:18:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1207
Posted: Tue Aug 13 09:18:57 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Aug-85 00:25:29 EDT
References: <539@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 86

In article <539@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:

>> 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 has been pointed out already that the validity of a moral system does
>not rely on its acceptance. All moral systems fail this criterion therefore
>it is meaningless to apply it.

Rich's system in fact relies upon the acceptance of certain priniciples by
some group; therefore someone who does not accpet the principles cannot be
expected to follow the morality.  A system which posits some absolute, which
is (at least partially) knowable, however, does allow this expectation.  To
a great extent, this distinction manifests itself in whether a system claims
evil to be abnormal and willful.  Rich's system does not, as best I can tell,
and therefore falls into the first class.  A system which claims that evil
people do recognize what good is falls into the second class.

>> 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.

>This is easier said than demonstrated. I would be interested in your proof.
>Also, by your own reasoning the morality of the n.t. cannot be correct since
>criminal behaviour exists.

THere is not time to go into this comparison.  I would point out, however,
that NT morality clearly falls into the second class stated above.

>> 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!)

>First you have to prove that there is such a thing as a pre-existent Good
>of the form that you describe. Then you must prove that there is such a thing
>as god. After doing that you must demonstrate that the god you have in mind
>is one and the same as that in the n.t. and so on ...

Who are you to set the grounds for this discussion?  Did you not read what
I just said?  This is not the place for such an argument.  Besides, I think
the point quite clearly is that "Christian morality is in theory universal,
but in practice must be treated as personal."  If you take just this one
sentence, like so:

>You say that it can be argued that "christian morality is universal
>only for christians". This is meaningless.

I admit I am unclear.  But that is a cheap debator's trick, and not real
argument.

> If this is the case then
>Rich's morality, is as universal as your's since his has probably got some
>adherents. Incidently I thought that sometime during the discussion
>you claimed that your morality was not god based?

Well,interestingly enough, Rich also says that a society determines what
morality is.  I would therefore submit to you that Rich's morality is wrong
by his own arguments, since it is certainly not the morality of THIS country.
It certainly isn't the morality of P.G. County, Md.  Rich has highlighted a
different distinction, namely, between those moralities which on occaision
demand defiance of a society, and those which demand allegiance to society.
Rich's other statements lead one to believe that his personal morality is
of the first type; the system he is arguing for, however, is of the second
type.

Earlier in this discussion, I said that I was not going to attack Rich's
system simply on the basis that was not christian.  Since the floor has been
opened to a more general topic, I have brought in NT morality as an
example of something rather different from Rich's avowed system.  I am still,
however, hoisting Rich on his own petard; his derivation of his system simply
does not convince me, in the face of how he applies it in practice.

C Wingate