Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Premises,Premises,Premises,... (is good logical?)
Message-ID: <1076@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 17:17:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1076
Posted: Wed Jun 12 17:17:30 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 03:08:25 EDT
References: <593@sfmag.UUCP> <1048@pyuxd.UUCP> <597@sfmag.UUCP>
Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association
Lines: 49

>> > 
>> > I like it. I do. I really do. Do I like it! What else can I say to
>> > justify acceptance of this dogma?
>> 
>> I'm not sure.  What is it you're looking for?
>
> Well, you propose to judge a morality system based on how well it serves
> individual's rights and public well-being (or some such good-intentioned
> phrasing). But where did you get that?
> Dracula's morality is for him to be able to drink lots of blood,  no matter
> what the cost to the public.
> Your values set the tone. Genghis Khan likes different things -
> without a god to arbitrate you two, internal consistency of your
> moral outlooks is the only measure I see.

Your subject line asks the question "Is good logical?"  I prefer not to
cloud things with words like "good" and "evil".  Everyone on this planet
thinks the best morality is based on good.  The problems occur when you ask
each of them to define good.  Logically, the MOST good would be accomplished
by that system which is good to the most people over the longest period of
time.  When Genghis Khan and Dracula have killed everyone or taken all their
possessions away or whatever, it's sort of like Dennis Moore taking everything
from the rich and giving it all to the poor who are now rich so that...
And what happens after they've died?  (Dracula notwithstanding :-)  You could
even envision a system in which half the people of the world are given
everything belonging to the other half, thus being real good for the first
half but miserable for the other half.  For a while, until, like the
Romans whose empire was sacked and plundered and crushed by the barbarians,
those who vanquished are now vanquished themselves.  It would seem logical
that the system that produces the most good for the most people for the longest
time would work out to be the best (most good) in the long run.

>>"The strong rule" is a fact of life no matter which morality you subscribe to.
>> A morality that serves the needs of all the people as much as possible will
>> gain the support of those people, and the support of the vast majority of
>> people should be enough deterrent to you if you choose to believe there are
>> no "rights of others".  And if it's not, the society should be strong enough
>> to put a stop to any interference you might decide to evince.

> Well, by "the strong rule" I meant cruel disregard for others.
> You say that someone who subscibes to it is beaten into submission
> by vast majority. Sometimes it is so.
> But this is a suggestion to use such voting as the criterion
> for morals.

No it isn't.  Because it is the acts of interference on the part of the
interferers that lead people to put a stop to them, NOT their "morality".
-- 
"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?"    Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr