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!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack ) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <362@aero.ARPA> Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 14:26:06 EDT Article-I.D.: aero.362 Posted: Thu Aug 15 14:26:06 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 22:31:48 EDT References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1189@umcp-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734)) Organization: The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA Lines: 86 Summary: [ouch] >>Chris Warack >Charley Wingate >>How is one morality better than another? This is probably the real issue. >>What makes one morality better? How is that judged? Is there a perfect >>morality? Now here is where the problems start. I don't have any clear >>ideas on these questions, [although I do have some murky ones]. Any ideas? >>I do think that Rich's morality is actually pretty decent. >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. What constraints? Why do additional constraints make it stronger? Maybe a perfect morality is one where it could be shown that: if everyone followed it, then all actions would be good. That is it could not cause moral dilemmas where the only actions available would be bad. But an even better morality might achieve the same results even if some people did not suscribe to it. >>Morality is also dynamic. It can change rather quickly, in fact. But, of >>course, the more people who suscribe to the same morality, the slower it >>changes [at least as a whole]. >I don't think this is correct. Some systems have absolute morality which is >unchanging. Others have absolutes whose implications for action change. >Still others have absolutes the perceptions of which change. My basis for that statment is that an individual may have his 'eyes opened' and change his morality in an instant. A universal morality would not change as quickly since it's rooted in a number of people or other sources that would all have to change. I think that what is said above goes into how a 'universal' morality provides the foundation for a personal morality. A persons perceptions of universal morals become personal morals [along with other rules which aren't covered in the universal set]. I can't imagine any morality that is totally unchanging. Can I get an example? >Almost any system which is based on the maximization of some good provides a >basis for an absolute morality (even Rich's). If one looked at all of >history, and were sufficiently wise, one could perceive what the optimal thing >to do in any situation would be. This, I submit, forms an absolute for that >moral system. This absolute is of course obscure to us, and you can go on >at great length about whether it implies anything at all. There are situations where history doesn't apply. [Genetics for instance.] Wouldn't a morality have to handle situations like this as well. I think that is a useful definition for comparison. An absolute for a moral system it the optimal action in any situation [the 'goodest']. But I don't think knowledge of all of history is enough, but that isn't really relevant. >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!) I like this description of God and morality. But it follows from the existence of God, which many of the readers of this group don't allow for. Thus, this would not work to convince them to adopt Christian morals into their personal morality. Also, how are these laws communicated? Through the Bible? There is a lot of merely human intervention in what the Bible says today. It is quite open to wide range of interpretation. I would not argue that God knows the absolute to THE perfect morality, but I don't find much evidence that He has communicated it to us! For your consideration, 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 ^^^ ^^^ `---------(|=