Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definitions of Morality
Message-ID: <1632@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 00:10:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1632
Posted: Mon Aug 26 00:10:59 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 00:45:33 EDT
References: <374@aero.ARPA>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: none.  Entropy: maximum possible.
Lines: 35
Summary: 

In article <374@aero.ARPA> warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734)) writes:
>             If anyone wishes to discuss definitions, respond to this
>article, not others.
>
>MORAL -- a mechanism for determining whether an action is OK or not.

If I'm not mistaken, a discussion of definitions was what you intended
to get in the discussion "What is morality, anyways", but the discussion
ended up being about whether it was right for one person's morals to be
imposed on others.  I'm guilty (good moral concept, that) of advancing
a tentative definition of morality and then going on too long about the
consequences of that definition.  I'll stick to the topic here.

One thing, maybe, that we can all agree on, is that a morality is a
system of restrictions on our behaviour.  Another thing we can probably
agree on is that not all restrictions on our behaviour are moral in
nature.  For example, the reason why I don't flap my arms and fly has
nothing to do with morality.  So it seems to me that a definition of
morality involves describing what it is that distinguishes moral
restrictions on our behaviour from other kinds of restrictions.

Another thing to consider is what version of morality we want to try to
define.  What the majority of people in our society mean by the term?
Or shall we simply compare our personal definitions?  If the latter,
bickering can be avoided if we realize ahead of time that we are likely
to disapprove of each other's morals, and resolve not to take it too
personally.

That's all for now...

-- 
David Canzi

This has been a test of the emergency broadcasting sytem.  It was only a test.
Repeat: only a test.  If this had been a real emergency, you would be dead.