Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes Message-ID: <492@utastro.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 20:15:30 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.492 Posted: Mon Aug 5 20:15:30 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 03:35:34 EDT References: <473@utastro.UUCP> <1094@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 50 > >I don't understand the objection here. Are you trying to tell me that > >there is a system that everyone accepts? If so let's hear it. If not, your > >criticism doesn't carry much weight. > > That isn't the problem. THe problem is, if you are going to say that "this > is the moral system to follow", you need to have some justification for > expecting others to follow it. But for those people who disagree with Rich's > rationale for his system, it seems to me that Rich has written away his right > to criticize them for not following it. He is saying that the basis for > his system is the realization that cooperation can "maximize" good. But a > person who may recognize that this is true may still prefer to maximize his > own good at the expense of others. Since everthing is based on desires, Rich > has no good reason for taking his viewpoint as the preferred one. Even if > his view is the majority, there is nothing preventing the majority from being > immoral. Therefore, Rich's morality is strictly personal; you must expect > it of yourself, but you can't expect it of anyone else. I agree pretty much with most of this. I don't see it as a great problem that it is strictly personal. I think that basically the majority decides what is "moral" until forced to recognize the need to review some of its currently held tenets (an example of this would be the era of the civil rights movement). I don't think it makes sense to talk about "immoral" majorities, since I have never seen any evidence that any society has ever held "moral" tenets that have never undergone revision. There are no absolutes that I am aware of. As a test of this can we come up the some society that we both would agree was "immoral", but which did not cause discomfort to its population? One may try to get South Africa and Nazi Germany to fit this mold but they wont. I claim that the basis for their "immorality" is the pain they cause. I don't agree that Rich has written away his right to criticize anyone who advocates excessive self indulgence at the expense of other's personal comfort, since Rich may be on the receiving end of the action. It seems that we must agree to differ here. > ... Assuming that a majority are inclined towards > cooperation, the minority is certainly still very large. Even so, I think > that, besides a model of human nature, you also need a model of what human > nature OUGHT to be. It simply isn't valid to say that "ALL humans should > cooperate" because "MOST humans want to cooperate"; morality simply isn't > a ratification of group will. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe I think the argument runs "All humans should cooperate" because "most humans realize that they benefit through cooperation, and hence want to". Padraig Houlahan.