Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Some other moral reasons
Message-ID: <1416@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 23:15:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1416
Posted: Tue Aug 27 23:15:58 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 23:36:56 EDT
References: <1588@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 62

In article <1588@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>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.

Let's take homosexuality for a minute.  Assume for the moment that
some christians believe that homosexuality is a sin.  There's a well
established principle in Christianity (it's in the NT) that one should not
do things which would tend to lead these people astray (from their point of
view), even if you believe these actions to be perfectly acceptable.  Your
actions, although they are morally acceptable from your point of view,
interfere with another through the power of example.

On to adultery...  First we must ask what marriage is.  I think it's
sufficient to define it as a commitment to a (semi-)permanent relationship
between two people.  Adultery is a break in this commitment, almost always
bringing on disruption of the relationship.  So again, there is an
interference with the good of another (at least potentially).

These examples lead me to question whether Rich is seeing interference in
too narrow terms.  Most social acts have side effects through example or
other channels, as well as the direct intention.  Is it not reasonable to
ask people to consider those side effects as well when avoiding interference?


>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.

Judaism has a distinction betwen the laws Jews are expected to follow, and
those laws which anyone is expected to follow.  Different groups within
christendom have different viewpoints about demanding obesiance to God and
Jesus.  It's therefore incorrect to characterize this impositional sort of
morality as the only christian position.  (Not that Rich does above)


>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.

Anti-human behavior IS the definition of evil, Rich.  If homosexuality is
thought to be severe enough a perversion (and thus harmful to normal
sexuality), then this whole argument falls flat.  And equally, one must
examine one's own soul when proposing these kinds of actions.  I tend to
believe that homosexuality is a sin (but not a particularly bad one), but
the hateful emotion directed against them by many people makes me at present
a supporter of homosexual rights under most circumstances.

Charley Wingate

 "I say this because I want to be prime minister of Canada someday."
     -- Michael J. Fox