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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: What is morality anyways?
Message-ID: <1449@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 14:21:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1449
Posted: Fri Aug 30 14:21:50 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 12:46:31 EDT
References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1604@watdcsu.UUCP> <1303@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1634@watdcsu.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 37

In article <1634@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes:
>...  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?

I don't grant your premise.  I think one could come up with a definition
that more people would accept than would accept yours.

>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.

By my definition of morality, which is close to some of the definitions
suggested on the net, it is *impossible* to adopt total amorality.  I don'
agree that there are no reasons to prefer certain moral principles.  Here
are two:  consistency, and conduciveness to individual benefit.  (These might
not determine a unique principle, but they definitely suffice to reject many.)

>>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.

It's primarily a definition, though it's not entirely morally neutral.  It
may, *qua* definition, be arbitrary, but that just means that if you reject
it you will be using the word "ought" differently from most English speakers.
You may have no reason to accept the *definition* (other than convenience),
but you still have plenty reason to *do* what you would do if you were fully
informed, rational, and free.  Aye, and there's the rub.

--Paul V Torek, iconoclast for all reasons