Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site aero.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <404@aero.ARPA> Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 16:29:21 EDT Article-I.D.: aero.404 Posted: Tue Aug 27 16:29:21 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 13:05:00 EDT References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1483@pyuxd.UUCP> <364@aero.ARPA> <1542@pyuxd.UUCP> <389@aero.ARPA> <1588@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack) Followup-To: net.philosophy Organization: The Discordian Society Lines: 106 Summary: More Discussion at 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.) I didn't mean to imply that I thought 'turn the other cheek' was a moral system we should all use. The point I wish to make is that ARBITRATION is not necessary in ALL moral systems. A morality of this type can sustain itself through persuasion. [Again, I am not implying that 'turn the other cheek' would work well; I'm talking of the class of systems of which it is a member.] I mean persuasion that is not forced on another. This kind of system would be more desirable, wouldn't it? There are problems that such a system would have to deal with. How to deal with certain types of people -- For instance, some one who killed people randomly and doesn't want to listen to persuasion. In a case like this, there is clearly a problem. This may be solved without arbitration only if everyone else agrees on a course of action. This may not be too plausible, but in a small society it may work. Borderline cases may be more difficult for a unanimous decision to be reached, but then what is wrong with nothing being done? If the situation gets worse, eventually a consensus can be reached. I'm not proposing these as good moral systems. I'm just showing that it is possible to devise a VIABLE moral system without 'arbitration'. And, remember we were talking about arbitration in terms of judges or other mechanisms that don't include the ENTIRE group. The benefit of a system without arbitration is that it doesn't need to worry about the problems surrounding judges. >>>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. I don't know that the Bible directly prohibits certain sexual lifestyles. [Some sections, like the story of Sodom in Genesis, certainly 'discourage' it]. Adultery and coveting [neighbor's wife] may have stemmed from marriage as ownership, but they most certainly affect others' lives. As you say, commitment to marriage is personal between two people, if one of those person chooses to 'break' that commitment, he/she is directly affecting the other. [Also remember that covet applies to other's property -- thy neighbor's goods]. >> 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. I mentioned previously that there are several 'Christian' moralities. Maybe the 'involving God' is part of THE Christian morality, but I know of many 'Christians' who are really agnostic or even athiest. That 'disembodied' kind of 'Christian' morality is what I meant above. I have yet to see how a system based in 'Christian' morality cannot be a viable societal moral code. I think that morality and religion can be pretty well seperated. The only thing that may not be easy to disentangle is a rationale behind the morality that is based in religion. However, this does not get in the way of observing the characteristics of the morality [philosophically]. I would still find the Bible quite interesting as a morality text even if the religious references were omitted. [I'm not making a statement on either my morals or my religious beliefs in this paragraph; so nobody try to infer any]. For Your Consideration, -- _______ |/-----\| Chris Warack (213) 648-6617 ||hello|| || || warack@aerospace.ARPA |-------| warack@aero.UUCP |@ ___ | seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest! |_______| sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack || || \ Aerospace Corporation, M1-117, El Segundo, CA 90245 ^^^ ^^^ `---------(|=