Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!tedrick
From: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality
Message-ID: <13690@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 8-May-86 04:28:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.13690
Posted: Thu May  8 04:28:38 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 10-May-86 07:09:26 EDT
References: <534@bu-cs.UUCP> <13627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <534@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 24

>I would like to get a clarification of terms here.
>When Tom says that "logic" is needed, does he mean more
>than the formal symbol-manipulation game that some
>metamathematicians call "logic"? 

Yes. But I claim symbolic logic is a good starting point.



>Seems to me that a true science of morality requires
>correct identification of the essential nature and
>requirements of human beings first.  I do a lot of
>reading, but outside the writings of Ayn Rand I find
>mostly muddled ideas on this score.  Almost all
>work on morality seems to start somewhere in the
>middle, rather than building firm foundations.  In
>any event, I hope it is clear that a science of
>morality will probably not resemble a field of
>mathematics, physics, biology, or even psychology.

I believe a good start has already been made.
I claim Axelrod's book on the "Evolution of Cooperation"
is a step towards a scientific treatment of morality.
(This is an analysis of the so-called "Prisoners Dilemma.")