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!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <1303@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 15:57:14 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1303 Posted: Mon Aug 19 15:57:14 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 15:20:52 EDT References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1604@watdcsu.UUCP> Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 25 In article <1604@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >Another interesting corollary is that religious moral systems based on >eternal rewards and punishments (eg. Heaven and Hell), are not moral >systems at all, because the motivation for good behaviour is based >ultimately on self-interest. If moral systems based on self-interest aren't moral systems, then a lot of ancient Greek moral philosophy will have to be thrown out as not really addressing morality at all. I don't think that's right. (Though I do agree that there is something bogus about the idea of a morality based on the Heaven-or-Hell carrot-and-stick scheme.) >My belief is that there is no such thing as "moral truth". There is no >logical or rational reason to put any criterion ahead of self-interest >in deciding on your next action. How about, a benevolent concern for the welfare of others? Acting on that is perfectly rational. Identifying rationality with self-interest is bogus. Or maybe your point is, some people might not have any benevolence? Anyhow, there is such a thing as moral truth: what you *really* ought to do (as opposed to what you think you should do) is what you would do if you were fully informed, rational, and free. --Paul V Torek, Iconbuster-In-Chief