Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!l5!laura
From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: (micromotives & macrobehavior & microcephali)
Message-ID: <143@l5.uucp>
Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 20:33:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: l5.143
Posted: Sat Sep 21 20:33:37 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 07:30:51 EDT
References: <535@brl-tgr.ARPA> <108@l5.uucp> <114@oberon.UUCP>
Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Ell-Five [Consultants], San Francisco
Lines: 57

In article <114@oberon.UUCP> walker@oberon.UUCP (Mike Walker) writes:
>> 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 don't know why you separate moral rights from moral philosophy. I agree
that they are a basis of political philosophy, but I don't see how they
can be said to be derived from moral philosophy. In a good many moral
systems, rights are *given* and thus moral philosophy can be said to
derive from them (though not necessarily entirely from them).

>I have to disagree that a system for organizing society
>(possibly a political system) should promote virtue.

I guess I was unclear. I was not trying to say that a system should promote
virtue, but, rather I was saying that this is what is expected of most
political systems.  I actually think that the notion of virtue is so bound
into any political system that we cannot help but attempt to promote at least
some virtues, even if we do not do so explicitly.


>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?

I don't think that the term ``political philosophy'' implies a state.  If
you want to do away with teh state entirely you can be an anarchist political
philosopher -- and can probably get that point across early on. If you
start calling it ``social philosophy'' you may find yourself involved in
questions of sociology, which is fine if that is what you want, but not
if what you want to discuss is a stateless society.

I think that last paragraph of yours indicates that you consider forced
adherance to one religion undesirable. Presumably your stateless society
would promote freedom of religion. But ``freedom of religion'' would be
a right in your society, and those who respect this right would be
virtuous -- your stateless society has ended up promoting a virtue...

-- 
Laura Creighton		(note new address!)
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa