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