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: What is morality anyways?
Message-ID: <1634@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 05:26:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1634
Posted: Tue Aug 27 05:26:50 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 01:52:39 EDT
References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1604@watdcsu.UUCP> <1303@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: none.  Entropy: maximum possible.
Lines: 51
Summary: 

In article <1303@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes:
>>Another interesting corollary is that religious moral systems based on
>>eternal rewards and punishments (eg. Heaven and Hell), are not moral
>>systems at all, because the motivation for good behaviour is based
>>ultimately on self-interest.
>
>If moral systems based on self-interest aren't moral systems, then a lot
>of ancient Greek moral philosophy will have to be thrown out as not really
>addressing morality at all.  I don't think that's right.  (Though I do
>agree that there is something bogus about the idea of a morality based
>on the Heaven-or-Hell carrot-and-stick scheme.)

I guessed, perhaps wrongly, at what the word morality means to most people,
and used that definition throughout my article.  It just so happens that
that definition excludes some ancient Greek philosophy that your personal
definition includes.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I have
correctly guessed at the most widely accepted definition of morality, and
that your personal definition disagrees with it, on what grounds can you
claim that your definition is true, and theirs is false?

>>My belief is that there is no such thing as "moral truth".  There is no
>>logical or rational reason to put any criterion ahead of self-interest
>>in deciding on your next action.
>
>How about, a benevolent concern for the welfare of others?  Acting on that
>is perfectly rational.  Identifying rationality with self-interest is bogus.
>Or maybe your point is, some people might not have any benevolence?

I was trying to show that, given a random moral principle, there is no
way to demonstrate its "truth" or "falsehood".  If so, then the choice
of whether to accept that moral principle is arbitrary.  Given this
arbitrariness, there is no real reason to accept *any* moral principles,
so total amorality seems like a reasonable position to adopt.

>Anyhow, there is such a thing as moral truth:  what you *really* ought to do
>(as opposed to what you think you should do) is what you would do if you
>were fully informed, rational, and free.

This looks like either a definition or a moral principle.  If the former,
it's arbitrary (part of the nature of definitions), if the latter, it's
arbitrary.  I have no logical reason to accept it.

>--Paul V Torek, Iconbuster-In-Chief

Better guard yer icons, buster.

-- 
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.