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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <1588@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 25-Aug-85 16:16:12 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1588 Posted: Sun Aug 25 16:16:12 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 20:18:22 EDT References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1483@pyuxd.UUCP> <364@aero.ARPA> <1542@pyuxd.UUCP> <389@aero.ARPA> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 79 >>This is an implementation question, "how do we select judges?". All moral >>systems are incomplete, they cannot cover everything in written word. In cases >>where there is conflict, obviously some form of arbitration must occur. > This is more than an implementation question. [I'm expanding the issue > beyond just arbitration]. Some moral systems may not NEED arbitration > in any case. One such that springs to mind is the moral "Turn the other > cheek." In this case, the solution to any conflict is built in. Ah, but look what happens in the real world to practitioners of this morality. Not many survivors. Viable moral systems, ones that last and perpetuate, all cannot be complete, and thus arbitration is necessary. (I contend that this morality is not viable for the following reason: if a person doesn't adhere it, what is done? Coercion? No, cheek turning. The morality cannot sustain itself.) >>>However, any number of moralities can be 'least restrictive' even >>>interpretations of the Christian ones [semi- :-)]. There is still a >>>question about which gives the most to the most people. >>Clearly any system that makes arbitrary restrictions of "thou shalt not do >>this", where "this" is something not involving a negative effect on another >>person's life, is NOT a candidate for the moral system that does the most >>for the most people. > If you are speaking of the Bible, then the "thou shalt not do THIS"'s > all involve some effect on another's life [Steal, Kill, Adultery, ...] > or direct potential [Covet ...]. What about prohibitions that have nothing to do with other people's lives? Like choice of sexual lifestyle, for example. Obviously stealing and killing are part of minimal non-interference morality, so I'm not sure why you bothered to mention them. Adultery and coveting? I think these stem from notions of marriage as ownership, which fit into the category of negative restrictions. Commitment to marriage is a personal between two people. > There are other "thou shall"'s which > are positive [Honor father/mother, love one another ...]. Then there > are other's involving God [Not take name in vain, Keep holy the > Sabbath]. The only ones I can think of that fit your description fall > into the 'involving God' category. Thus, if you ignore the religious > aspects [which I maintain can be kept separate from morality], Christian > morality should be kept in consideration as a decent system. But the 'involving god' part IS most definitely a part of the Christian morality that some Christians seek to impose on the rest of us. And since not all the "shalt not"s are part of the minimal morality mold, there you see the problems with Christianity as a viable societal moral code. >>>It brings to a head the question of which is evil: the person or his >>>morality? Some moral systems [Rich's own, for instance] regard anything >>>'interfering' = 'going against' as bad. If it regards the person as >>>evil, then it must rid itself of him somehow. If it is the person's >>>morals, then should it attempt to convince the person to change his >>>morals [rehabilitate]? or should it rid itself of the morals by ridding >>>itself of the person? >>The first, of course, as much as possible. The society's responsible is NOT >>to a code of morality but to its members, and it is their protection from >>such actions as this person has taken that is sought. > I'm not sure that the former is the less restrictive path. At least > with banishment and exile, the restrictions placed on the person are > small. He cannot go to certain areas. Rehabilitation implies changing > a person's viewpoint maybe even AGAINST his will. I would consider this > a major interference. Also note that this implies some sort of judgment > by society on that person's guilt. If we were talking about aversion therapy for homosexuals or something arbitrary like that, I could see your point. This would be a vile restriction of human freedom (of which Alan Turing was a victim). On the other hand, if we are talking about anti-human behavior, harming other people, such a person is a danger to other people. The first method gives the person a chance to change to behavior that doesn't harm other people, before banishment or exile. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr