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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack
From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: What is morality anyways?
Message-ID: <389@aero.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 14:26:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: aero.389
Posted: Thu Aug 22 14:26:15 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 13:47:09 EDT
References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1483@pyuxd.UUCP> <364@aero.ARPA> <1542@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack)
Followup-To: net.philosophy
Organization: The Discordian Society
Lines: 84
Summary: 


 from this person's anti-human acts.

>> Then banishment and/or exile would work as well as prison.  As I
>> mentioned earlier, though, this type of thinking requires a 'judge.'
>> How does he determine the need to remove a 'transgressor?'  His own
>> morals may differ significantly from anyone elses...

>This is an implementation question, "how do we select judges?".  All moral
>systems are incomplete, they cannot cover everything in written word. In cases
>where there is conflict, obviously some form of arbitration must occur.

This is more than an implementation question.  [I'm expanding the issue
beyond just arbitration].  Some moral systems may not NEED arbitration
in any case.  One such that springs to mind is the moral "Turn the other
cheek."  In this case, the solution to any conflict is built in.  I
don't see this moral as very satisfactory, but the point is that
arbitration may not be necessary.  It seems more desirable to try and
avoid it if possible.  I'm curious if anyone has come across other
'morals' that remove the need for 'judges.'

>> However, any number of moralities can be 'least restrictive' even
>> interpretations of the Christian ones [semi- :-)].  There is still a
>> question about which gives the most to the most people.

>Clearly any system that makes arbitrary restrictions of "thou shalt not do
>this", where "this" is something not involving a negative effect on another
>person's life, is NOT a candidate for the moral system that does the most
>for the most people.

If you are speaking of the Bible, then the "thou shalt not do THIS"'s
all involve some effect on another's life [Steal, Kill, Adultery, ...]
or direct potential [Covet ...].  There are other "thou shall"'s which
are positive [Honor father/mother, love one another ...].  Then there
are other's involving God [Not take name in vain, Keep holy the
Sabbath].  The only ones I can think of that fit your description fall
into the 'involving God' category.  Thus, if you ignore the religious
aspects [which I maintain can be kept separate from morality], Christian
morality should be kept in consideration as a decent system.

>> It
>> brings to a head the question of which is evil: the person or his
>> morality?  Some moral systems [Rich's own, for instance] regard anything
>> 'interfering' = 'going against' as bad.  If it regards the person as
>> evil, then it must rid itself of him somehow.  If it is the person's
>> morals, then should it attempt to convince the person to change his
>> morals [rehabilitate]? or should it rid itself of the morals by ridding
>> itself of the person?

>The first, of course, as much as possible.  The society's responsible is NOT
>to a code of morality but to its members, and it is their protection from
>such actions as this person has taken that is sought.

I'm not sure that the former is the less restrictive path.  At least
with banishment and exile, the restrictions placed on the person are
small.  He cannot go to certain areas.  Rehabilitation implies changing
a person's viewpoint maybe even AGAINST his will.  I would consider this
a major interference.  Also note that this implies some sort of judgment
by society on that person's guilt.  Of course, in some cases the
judgment might be obvious, but there are always borderline cases.
Again, this raises the question of whether judgment can be avoided.

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
 ^^^ ^^^  `---------(|=