Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!sundc!gouldsd!mjranum From: mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus the Ranum) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: Poor People/Lazy People Message-ID: <197@gouldsd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 17:45:36 EDT Article-I.D.: gouldsd.197 Posted: Fri Oct 10 17:45:36 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 06:56:17 EDT References: <1010@cad.cs.cmu.edu> <1050001@hpspkla.HP.COM> <1079@kontron.UUCP> <2017@ihlpa.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Gould Inc, ASDD, Landover, MD Lines: 72 Summary: morality ? In article <2017@ihlpa.UUCP>, gadfly@ihlpa.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: > -- > > [...hacked] It would behoove > you, mjr, to study some real moral philosophy. By stating that you, I, and > everyone has some set of obligations to others does not mean that we must > spend every waking hour nurturing the less fortunate. There are some who do > hold this belief, and I am in awe of their courage. My *argv was simply that such statements as "we are our brother's keepers" and clarion calls about our "duty to our fellow man" are functionally meaningless. This stems from a moral dilemma I have pondered for some time. To wit: a starving person comes to me on the street and asks for money so she can get her next meal. I give it to her. 3 minutes later another person comes to me and is in equally sad shape, and also asks me for money. If I take the moral stand that I have an absolute duty to these people, I am failing in my duty if I say "sorry". Moral duty, when stated in the general and very forcible terms you originally used in your first posting, is an absolute. If I can help someone, and don't I am WRONG. I really don't see how someone who is claiming that we have an absolute moral duty to help our fellow man can then decide to select the level and the type of obligation we are under. Moral philosophy has never been my strong point, I admit. Generally it has struck me as little more than lots of words that people use to convince themselves that they are nice guys. I have met many people who are very upset about our poor Amerikan bag people, who don't give a flying **** for the poor in Afrika. it is all well and good to love one's fellow man of one's own choosing, but to state it as a moral imperative is taking a lot of weight on your shoulders. >It's a bit of an oversimplification, but you can divide most ethical codes >into two camps: (1)deontology, which posits a set of absolutes and appropriate >behaviors which derive from them; and (2) utilitarianism, which sets out a >relativistic algorithm (viz: greatest good for the greatest number) which one >adopts behaviors in order to maximize. We of course ignore all flavors of >ethical egoism (in a nutshell, "what's good for me is good") as garbage. >But even constrained to (1) or (2), we have quite a bit of freedom to >decide whom we help and how much. Why do you "of course" ignore Eudaemonism ? ("what feels right is right", and the related "what is good for me, etc..") That is a philosophy that has been dear to mankind since the days we crawled out of the mud. Anyhow, I disagree with you that there is such a thing as leeway in any absolute moral system. That's why it's spelled "absolute". If your God says it's right to help your fellow man, it must be wrong not to. The greatest good for the greatest number is an excellent idea, but that was not what I understood you to be talking about when you said that designer-yuppie-brained-people-from-hell-&c had to wake up and understand that they have a duty to their fellow man. "Duty" implies an obligation, as to all absolute moral codes. > >And then, one's moral code is an ideal to live up to. If I ought to be >helping *everyone*, then I am not as good or complete a person as I could >be if I did so. That's the point. These damned Randists go beyond simply >"looking out for ol' number one." After all, we all do that to some >degree. But they've raised selfishness to a bloody sacrament. > What's a Randist ? Again, I feel you contradict yourself. A moral code is not an ideal to live up to. It is a LAW. If you fail it, you have failed yourself. If you choose to accept mankind as your brother, the moment you decide to take a vacation from it, you have violated your moral codes, and whatever punishment you inflict upon yourself is deserved. -- You stupid screcrow ! Soup, the salad, fish and all... Or even worse, without !