Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <1524@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 07:58:24 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1524 Posted: Sat Aug 17 07:58:24 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:06:32 EDT References: <539@utastro.UUCP> <1207@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 126 > 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. [WINGATE] Cannot be expected? I'm not sure if you mean "is not required" here or not. No matter. Even if someone "does not accept" the principles, if they have common sense, they will recognize that failure to abide by the principles will result in problems for them, thus they cooperate. Very simple, Charles. > A system which posits some absolute, which > is (at least partially) knowable, however, does allow this expectation. Are you implying that whether or not there is a god it is necessary to make one in order to have an absolute reference point for a morality? Does that make any sense? > 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. Again with this "good" and "evil" stuff? You cannot define good and evil in absolute terms. They are relative to the person(s) using the terms. Of course, to an individual, interfering behavior on the part of another individual(s) may be thought of as "evil", but why so? If an absolute is to be drawn from this, it is that everyone thinks that other people interfering in their lives is "evil". Thus you have the basis for the minimal morality. >>>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. [WINGATE] >>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. [PADRAIG] > 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. Well, I used that excuse this week (it WAS four in the morning), so I'm in no position to judge. I don't think you DO realize that "strength" (how many tenets and constraints a morality has) is not a measure of a morality's merit. I say this precisely because I am suggesting a morality of the exact opposite proportions: minimal "strength" (meaning minimal number of constraints---actually this makes a morality stronger not weaker). At the same time, you are attempting to find fault in that, and not doing very well either. >>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. Who are YOU to set the grounds for this discussion? In reality, each and every one of us sets the grounds for the discussion. Yes, Charles, Padraig is quite right, you are obliged to prove that this pre-existent good does exist, because otherwise your whole argument falls to the ground like confetti. > 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. It is not a trick at all. In fact, calling it a cheap debator's trick sounds to me like a cheap debator's trick to get out of having to answer the questions posed. >> 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. Societies and countries have developed bad moralities, have they not? Building a state of existence where minimal morality can exist and flourish is of course a gradual process, just as humanity's slow but sure learning about cooperation is a gradual process. > 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. I'm not at all sure what relevance this has. In any non-minimal morality, you are serving the needs of the people less than the optimum way possible. Thus it may be in one's interest to rebell against restrictions such as the ones rightwing Christians propose to make into popular law. In a minimal morality, what restrictions would there be for you to rebell against? Restrictions against hurting other people? Now, is that something to fight for? > Earlier in this discussion, I said that I was not going to attack Rich's > system simply on the basis that was not christian. This in fact never happened because Charles kept drawing in god repeatedly though he promised he had "shirked" such things for purposes of this discussion. > 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. Where is minimal morality applied in practice by a society? Your phraseology makes it sounds like it's a lot more important to "hoist" people than to rationally discuss and rebut their arguments. Is that your set of priorities? -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr