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!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: What is morality anyways? Message-ID: <410@aero.ARPA> Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 19:25:13 EDT Article-I.D.: aero.410 Posted: Fri Aug 30 19:25:13 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 07:16:17 EDT References: <1542@pyuxd.UUCP> <27500102@ISM780B.UUCP> Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack) Followup-To: net.philosophy Organization: The Discordian Society Lines: 91 Summary: Puzzling through the universe thing but fringle, wouldn't proscription of snorfing or >fringling be preferable to proscription of snorfing, fringling, or glabbing? >However, to concede the conflict as you indicate, there doesn't seem to be >any inherent preference of a proscription against snorfing or fringling >over allowing snorfing, fringling, and anything else; I don't share the >former to the degree that it doesn't allow fringling, and I don't share >the latter because it does allow snorfing. I wonder how this can be extended to cover larger and larger groups? Can some sort of universal morality be reached this way? I think that problems will surface, because even using an Occam's Razor's approach, the proscriptions will build. I'm curious about other related ideas. How do people's morals actually compare? Most people don't even think about how their morality fits into life. Do they have a naive view that might influence their morals, or is their view a better one? I sometimes think that it might be a good idea to teach morality in school [is this secular humanism :-)?], but it's important enough that I'd be afraid of incompetency screwing someone up. Anyways, as I started to say, if PERSONAL morals of a large segment of the population were compared, I wonder what the results would be. How close would they be to 'universal' moralities? How would certain cross sections of society compare [rich vs. poor; technological vs. music industry]. >>[balter] >>By absolute, you seem to mean able to provide a judgement in all situations. >>Aside from questioning that (there is no order relation for goodness), I must >>point out that "absolute morality" normally means one which is held as being >>the ONE TRUE MORALITY, having a preferred place in the order of things over >>other claimed moralities, and therefore setting down in absolute fashion what >>is right or wrong. Relativists hold that notions of absolute right or wrong >>are semantically empty; even if some big bad bugger in the sky will zap me if >>I disobey his law, it is still only right or wrong from *his* point of view. >>But mostly it is humans with circular arguments demanding that I obey *their* >>morality. >[warack] >OK This is the difference between 'relativists' and 'absolutists.' >Although it is possible for a RIGHT one to exist without a 'big bad >bugger.' [Maybe its imbedded in the structure of the universe] I have >no evidence either for or against. It's plausible though. >[balter] >But what does it *mean* for one to be RIGHT? How do you *demonstrate* that >that the right one is right? The fact that some big mouthed absolutist >says so doesn't make it so. The fact that a big bugger with a GOD label >all over it says so doesn't make it so. How can a morality have *inherent* >preference? It must take some logical form. You could adopt a Panglossian >attitude that what happens is right and good and what doesn't is wrong >and bad, but that is rather too convenient and useless. Absolutists >*believe* that their beliefs are universal in some sense, but they have >no logical force behind this belief. I think I have good reason to hold >the absolute position to in fact be a position of arrogance. The way I can envision the POSSIBILITY of an absolute morality is through the following analogy. Take the problem of human happiness* as a puzzle [static or dynamic]. There is a solution or best solution to this puzzle. The moves which reach this solution are the correct actions to take. The rules governing the moves are an absolute morality. Let me restate, that I'm not sure such a morality exists, but I don't discount it as a possibility. I'm also not sure how anyone could know that it was correct, though I would probably have to have some proof before 'I' accepted it. Note that some Christian's believe that Biblical morality is absolute because God knows the 'solution to that puzzle' and has set down the 'rules' in the Bible. I personally don't see the Bible as an absolute morality, but I can see where someone with a strong faith in God could ... *I'm using human happiness here as an idiom of the ideal human situation. FYC, Chris -- _______ |/-----\| 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 ^^^ ^^^ `---------(|=