From: utzoo!watmath!djhawley
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: Re: Morality simplified [somewhat serious]
Article-I.D.: watmath.4839
Posted: Tue Apr  5 11:24:16 1983
Received: Tue Apr  5 23:40:27 1983
References: sdccsu3.457


One of the big problems I can see with defining 'good' and 'evil' in
terms of what benefits/harms a sentient being in its "final opinion"
is the meaning of "final opinion". If this means judgment over the
passage of a lifetime, then morality cannot judge behaviour until
way too late to affect the behaviour. This is also a variety of the
same problem that afflicts pragmatism -- the effects of an action
should really be taken in the looooooooooong view.

Secondly, this is a very simplistic view of morality. What about morality
in relation to others ( ex. Hobbesian selfishness vs enlightened
self-interest ) ? Moral philosophers have struggled with this question
for a long time. What about altruism, and the instinct to benevolence
which ( perhaps infrequently ) we observe. If this neither helps nor
harms us, it is thus amoral ! 

-----------------------------


    Yours for a more courageous morality
         David  Hawley