Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oberon.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker
From: walker@oberon.UUCP (Mike Walker)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: (micromotives & macrobehavior & microcephali)
Message-ID: <114@oberon.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Sep-85 15:42:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: oberon.114
Posted: Sun Sep 15 15:42:33 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 07:26:58 EDT
References: <535@brl-tgr.ARPA> <987@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: U. of So. Calif., Los Angeles
Lines: 31




> Political philosophy is always derived from moral philosophy. This is
> necessarily the case. Political philosophy is an attempt to describe an
> ideal arrangement whereby large groups of people can live together. A good
> political system is also usually expected to promote virtue. This means that
> before anything can be argued, the basic moral premises must be agreed upon.
> In net.politics it is common to assume that everybody agrees as to what is
> moral, but this is not aften the case. 
> -- 
> Laura Creighton		(note new address!)
> sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
> l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa

Laura, many would agree that political philosophy is derived from moral
philosophy, but I would say that moral rights are also derived from moral
philosophy and that they are also a basis of political philosophy (ie the
limits).  I have to disagree that a system for organizing society
(possibly a political system) should promote virtue.  This has been tried
before with the various theocracies and produced oppression and
unhappiness (yes, that makes me a hedonist).  I don't like the term
political philosophy since that assumes the orgainazational system to be a
state.  How about social philosophy?


-- 
Michael D. Walker (Mike)
Arpa: walker@oberon.ARPA
Uucp: {the (mostly unknown) world}!ihnp4!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker
                 {several select chunks}!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker