Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality
Message-ID: <909@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 15-May-86 21:22:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.909
Posted: Thu May 15 21:22:55 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 25-May-86 16:37:18 EDT
References: <534@bu-cs.UUCP> <13627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <534@brl-smoke.ARPA> <414@ccird1.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl-.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL)
Lines: 67

In article <414@ccird1.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:
>In article <534@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.ARPA writes:
>>Seems to me that a true science of morality requires
>>correct identification of the essential nature and
>>requirements of human beings first.
>
>These would be wonderful axioms of Anglo-American societies.
>
>freedom is good.
>people should not starve.
>leaders should serve the people.
>...
>
>An equally strong argument has been used in another type of society.
>
>People should not starve.
>The state should control distribution of the wealth.
>Leaders should be obeyed.
>...

What did I say earlier about people trying to start in the middle?
NONE of these deserve the status of axioms.  Some axioms are
undoubtedly required, but the right collection of principles
of this nature should be derivable from proper axioms and
scientific observation of the nature of human beings.

It is also very objectionable that "people should not starve"
is being foisted off as an axiom in both systems; these are
NOT the only possibilities, and as it happens I disagree with
both as package deals.

For example, I think freedom is good, but that is the consequence
of identifying the meaning of "freedom" and "good" in this context;
I would say that human nature is such that individual humans
need freedom to enact their own decisions concerning their
own lives, as a matter of survivability if nothing else.  This is
a consequence of identifying rational capacity as an essential
characteristic of human beings.  (It is nevertheless possible for
one's own decisions to be incorrect, so that one could, for
example, starve as a result of the error.  It is not clear that
this proves that others are necessarily in a better position to
make decisions for the individual!)

There are others who prefer to emphasize the collective rather
than the individual; I can't say that that is inherently irrational,
although I think it is mistaken; but collectivism's comparative
inefficiency, measured against its OWN standards, has been
demonstrated to my satisfaction, so even if I were a collectivist
at heart I would prefer to base social systems on rational
self-interest, properly defined.

There is no excuse at all for saying that the situation is too
complicated, so we should give up on determining correct answers.
The same could have been said about many fields of science which
are now well understood.

I would go so far as to say that the lack of a coherent, rational
ideology has been the major factor in getting the Anglo-American
societies into the sad shape they're in compared to their potential.
Certainly a society that claims to believe in the principles on
which the United States of America was founded should not try to
adopt practices and philosophies antagonistic to these principles,
as it has been doing.  This is causing severe damage to the cause
of individual liberty, with our active assistance!  (Of course,
some people may not want liberty, and by our principles they are
free to go elsewhere and become slaves.  The converse is false;
there is an essential asymmetry between the two types of society.)