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: <376@aero.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 20:38:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: aero.376
Posted: Mon Aug 19 20:38:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 04:52:36 EDT
References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1604@watdcsu.UUCP>
Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734))
Organization: The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 100
Summary: 

[ouch]
>>Chris Warack
>David Canzi

>>Next step -- so an action maps to good or evil.  A person acting morally
>>would proceed with a good action, and avoid an evil action.  If he didn't,
>>he would be acting immorally.  Correct?
>>Is this all? ... 

>I've been toying with the idea that morality is *less* than this.
>
>In our day-to-day lives we're constantly confronted with this
>decision:  What will I do next?  I prefer to define the idea of
>morality in terms of the grounds on which these decisions are made.  A
>moral ground for decision-making is some criterion which is independent
>of your desires, and that you place ahead of your desires in making the
>decision.

I agree that it is placed ahead of desires since moral reasons are
commonly used to supress desire.  But, they are not independent unless
you want to define them that way.  There are too many situations were a
person's morals follow their desires.  In fact I would say that at a
formative level; personal morals start as desires.  Later experience and
thought mold them and might separate the two [from very little to
totally].

>An important corollary of this is that, since behaviour is classified
>as moral on the basis of the grounds on which that behaviour was
>chosen, it is impossible to force people to behave morally.  Moral
>behaviour can only happen by *choice*.  The best you can do is arrange
>rewards and punishments, so that it will be in people's best interests
>to act the way you want them to.

There is a difference of perspective here.  'Moral behavior' according
to whom?  If you mean the person, then the above makes no sense.  If you
mean some group or universal morality, then that is true.  But I
postulate that every person has a personal morality.  A person may
choose a ''universal'' morality as their own -- then they are moral 'by
*choice*'.  By the way, WHO is arranging rewards and punishments??

>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.

Why aren't they moral systems?  I maybe see you arguing that they are
not 'unselfish' systems; but, that doesn't have anything to do with it.

>A third corollary is that, since the person must make the moral
>decision himself, what is moral behaviour for him is what he feels is
>moral, not what anybody else thinks is moral.  That's right folks, I'm
>a moral relativist.

OK, now you have defined personal morality.

>The fact that I've drawn three highly unpopular conclusions from what
>I take to be the common conception of morality indicates either that
>I'm way out in left field, or that the majority of people have failed
>to think through the consequences of their concept of morality.
:-?
>So far, I have said nothing about what those moral grounds for decision
>making are.  Now I get controversial.  As far as I can tell, most
>people's moral codes are derived entirely from the words of other
>people. [...]
>[EDITED]Our morals appear to be ultimately based on appeals to
>authority [parent, teacher ...]

These, of course, are going to have a major impact in determining the
development of personal morals, but not exclusively.  And as I said
earlier, it is a development that has its roots in desires.

>The only ways to arrive at "moral truth", if such a thing exists, are
>accepting somebody else's word for it (ie. authority), or guessing
>(intuition).  Neither one of these is considered as a reliable way
>of arriving at any kind of truth.  As far as I can tell, there is
>no way to determine "moral truth".

>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.

What are you striving at?  Maybe you meant by 'guessing,' inductive
reasoning?  This is the process by which observations and knowledge can
be used to extend or forecast more knowledge.  It is somewhat reliable
at arriving at truth.  Admittedly, it is not perfect, but that is built
into the system.  An inductive logician deals in probabilities.
Probably the most famaliar of these people is your friendly weatherman.
Contrary to popular opinion, they do alright.  And, because of the
methods of inductive logic, they are constantly getting better.

For your consideration,
-- 
 _______
|/-----\|    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
 ^^^ ^^^  `---------(|=