Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: What is morality anyways?
Message-ID: <673@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Aug-85 19:10:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.673
Posted: Sun Aug 25 19:10:43 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 09:24:56 EDT
References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1604@watdcsu.UUCP> <376@aero.ARPA>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 25

In article <376@aero.ARPA> warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734)) writes:
>>David Canzi
>
>>An important corollary of this is that, since behaviour is classified
>>as moral on the basis of the grounds on which that behaviour was
>>chosen, it is impossible to force people to behave morally.  Moral
>>behaviour can only happen by *choice*. 
>
>There is a difference of perspective here.  'Moral behavior' according
>to whom?  If you mean the person, then the above makes no sense.  If you
>mean some group or universal morality, then that is true.  But I
>postulate that every person has a personal morality.
>
	Well, actually it *does* make sense even when applied to
personal morality(though I think he was actually talking about group
or universal morality). It is most definately possible for a person to
violate his own personal morality, even by deliberate choice.  I know
this because I do so from time to time.  When I have achieved
perfection by my own moral standards I will tell you;-)
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa