Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: What is morality anyways?
Message-ID: <1303@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 15:57:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1303
Posted: Mon Aug 19 15:57:14 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 15:20:52 EDT
References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1604@watdcsu.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 25

In article <1604@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes:
>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.

If moral systems based on self-interest aren't moral systems, then a lot
of ancient Greek moral philosophy will have to be thrown out as not really
addressing morality at all.  I don't think that's right.  (Though I do
agree that there is something bogus about the idea of a morality based
on the Heaven-or-Hell carrot-and-stick scheme.)

>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.

How about, a benevolent concern for the welfare of others?  Acting on that
is perfectly rational.  Identifying rationality with self-interest is bogus.
Or maybe your point is, some people might not have any benevolence?

Anyhow, there is such a thing as moral truth:  what you *really* ought to do
(as opposed to what you think you should do) is what you would do if you
were fully informed, rational, and free.

--Paul V Torek, Iconbuster-In-Chief