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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <1636@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 19:36:35 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1636 Posted: Tue Sep 3 19:36:35 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 02:43:47 EDT References: <341@aero.ARPA> <1483@pyuxd.UUCP> <364@aero.ARPA> <1542@pyuxd.UUCP> <389@aero.ARPA> <1588@pyuxd.UUCP> <404@aero.ARPA> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 122 [Chris, apparently a good chunk of your article got cut off somewhere. I am responding to what I got.] >>... 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. In the one example I can think of of this specific morality, not only can't the followers persuade others of the "need" to do this, a good portion of them don't use it themselves. Moot. > [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? Give another example of this "class" that has lasted. Or any other at all. > 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. And the net result is the exact same case as minimal morality, resulting in a final coercion only when necessary. > 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. You have not shown a system where arbitration would not be required. You have shown no practical example of such a morality. The one example you gave you admitted yourself had to refer to arbitration of sorts. >>>>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]. Tell that to someone like Charley Wingate, who repeatedly asserts his dissociation from Falwelist fundamentalism yet who derides freedom of choice in such matters. > 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]. And there's nothing wrong in coveting as long as you seek to obtain what you covet (or its equivalent) by reasonable means. Your neighbor has the first place bowling trophy? You want it? You COVET it? So, you work hard and practice and maybe you'll get it. No disrespect. No interference. Back to marriage, IF a personal commitment is broken, that is the affair of the people involved. >>> 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. Well, when you make reference to a "christian" morality that does not make reference to god, or make reference to arbitrary "shalt not"s, then I'd say you are pretty damn close to minimal morality in the first place, with only a few possible exceptions. I doubt many Christians would agree with your assessments that this is a "Christian" morality. > 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. One thing I mentioned once before is that if your basis for a morality is "god says so", and you find someone intelligent enough to figure out, despite societal indoctrination that god exists, that there is no real proof for god's existence, the whole reason for "obedience" is shattered. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr