Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes
Message-ID: <473@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 10:58:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.473
Posted: Fri Aug  2 10:58:51 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 21:04:06 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 56


>>The criticism has been made that the "cooperation" and "because I like" basis
>>for morality are not valid since there will be people that will abuse such
>>principles, and probably gain as a result.

>...  But since Rich is claiming that personal
>desire is the justification for this system, aren't these dissenters perfectly
>justified in rejecting his system?  Rich's morality seems to apply only to
>those people who agree that it is true!  It is not universal.  This seems
>to hamstring it severely.

I don't understand the objection here. Are you trying to tell me that 
there is a system that everyone accepts? If so let's hear it. If not, your
criticism doesn't carry much weight.

>> This criticism is invalid for the
>>following reasons: 
>
>> a)  The validity of a moral system does not rely on one hundred percent
>>     acceptance on the part of those for which it is intended.
>
>This depends entirely on the basis for the system.  If you claim that the
>system is prexisting and does not depend on assent, than this is
>clearly true.  But Rich is saying that his system arises out of assent to
>his notion about cooperation; therefore his system is only valid for those
>people who agree with Rich's principle.

Again, one may decide that mutual cooperation is best for society, while
choosing not to abide by such a principle. (Criminals are quite happy to
run to the courts when it suits them.)


>>  c) If cooperation is the basis for the system, then non-cooperation
>>     can be condemned, by the system.
>
>Perhaps so, but there can be no moral onus on those who believe that 
>cooperation is not advantageous.

True. So what? This has always been the case. If I recall correctly the
question was essentially how could someone be condemned by the system based
on cooperation.

>>This is consistent with your previous contributions. I would be interested
>>in your:
>>           1) definition of human nature
>
>Well, Webster's definition will do:
>
>    "the complex of fundamental dispositions and traits of man"

Wait a minute here. You criticized those who defended cooperation, and the
"because I like" basis for morality on the grounds that no model
of human nature was presented. By your definition of human nature these
bases are clearly aspects of human nature.

Padraig Houlahan.