Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.legal
Subject: Re: The morality of morals -- some suggestions
Message-ID: <5118@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 10:36:57 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5118
Posted: Wed Feb 27 10:36:57 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 10:36:57 EST
References: <897@ratex.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 24

Here are some other questions which must be considered.

Are morals *necessary*?
In considering moral pronouncements is the basic unit the *individual*
or the *group*? 
Would an individual who does not interact with any other human
individuals (or, to take the ``group'' basic unit -- is not a
member of any society) be capable of immoral actions?
What is the authority of moral rules -- God(s)? The ability of the
proposer to use force agaisnt dissenters? somethng which is in
human nature?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura

ps -- moral systems are often classified by philosophers as being
``teleological'' or being ``deontological''. (the Natural Law 
philosophers want a separate category for themselves, as well.)
Make sure you know the difference because the arguments in support of one
are different from the arguments in support of the other. If you think that
a moral system should be both telelogical and deontelogical then you have
the problem of conflicts between the 2 principles...

Eric Mack is good reading on any of this.