Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: support for areligious moral codes
Message-ID: <241@umich.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 14:09:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.241
Posted: Fri Sep 20 14:09:34 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 05:03:29 EDT
References: <623@hou2g.UUCP> <5884@cbscc.UUCP> <1154@mhuxt.UUCP> <5906@cbscc.UUCP> <233@umich.UUCP> <5933@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Followup-To: net.philosophy
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 60
Keywords: Will Dubuc answer the "Summary:" question this time?
Xref: watmath net.politics:11106 net.religion:7725
Summary: Is there any support for *religious* moral codes?  

Four >'s = Sonntag, three or one = Dubuc, two = me:
>>>>      Here you've implied that no a-religious moral codes can supply 
>>>>valid reasons for *why* they should be followed.  Care to demonstrate that,
>>>>and how religious moral codes *do* supply valid reasons? [Sonntag]
>>>...
>>>Yes, that's my implication.  But you've shifted the burden of proof ...
>>
>>Ahem.  The reason for morality is that lack of it causes harm to
>>individuals such as myself.  I think it becomes crystal clear why the
>>areligious person ought to support an enforced public morality.  (Reasons
>>to be moral as an individual are a little more complex, but just as
>>explainable under areligous assumptions as under religious ones.)
>
>OK, then explain them.  Also you should give examples of what particular
>moral codes should be enforced and what binds the individual to obey
>them.  It doesn't necessarily follow that I will be harmed by not obeying
>moral codes.  How do you know I will?  [I didn't say that; see below --pvt]

Non-religious reasons to be moral derive from (a) sympathy for others as
part of a normal human psyche, which can seen to be rational from the facts
(a1) that humans are similar in ways relevant to concern about our own and
others' welfare, and (a2) sympathy is part and parcel of a set of dispositions
and affections which enrich our lives, in part by enabling us to feel joy or 
sadness at our own fortune or plight; (b) the way a rational being acts in
accordance with norms because those norms are (believed to be) valid for
all rational agents, which commits one to a certain sort of impartiality
(e.g., "Everyone should serve *me* because I'm *me*" is ruled out).

Whew.  Now all of the above merits more detail; but I would rather recommend
a few good books on the subjects than type all year.  But it should at least
be crystal clear that if others don't follow at least a "minimally decent" 
(specific examples:  no rape or murder allowed) behavior-pattern toward 
others, you and I will suffer.  That is what I meant when I said "lack of 
it [morality] causes harm to individuals such as [you and] myself":  not that
you'll be harmed by *your* immorality, but by *others'*.  THE LATTER IS 
ALREADY SUFFICIENT REASON to compel others to obey a moral code.

>>>Religious codes do provide the transcendent authority.  
>>
>>Wrong!  (I take you to mean that religious codes do supply valid reasons
>>for a moral code, over and above any reasons that might be supplied
>>without religion.  If you did not mean this, your statement does not
>>address Sonntag's point.)  [...]
>
>You are just saying I am wrong without showing me how I am wrong.  [...]

To quote a famous philosopher:  "Yes, that's my implication.  But you've
shifted the burden of proof ...".  The burden's on YOU to show how
religious codes "do provide the transcendent authority" i.e. provide 
reasons for an individual to be moral *over and above* the reasons ("if
any", if you insist there are none) human reason provides.  Prove that
you're not "in the same boat" as we agnostics are in!

But since you asked:  religious codes can't supply any independent reasons
because, as Socrates rhetorically queried Euthyphro:
	Is a thing good because the gods approve it, or do the
	gods approve it because it is good?
Two millenia later, the score remains:  Socrates 1, Euthyphro 0.

--Paul V Torek						torek@umich


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com