From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Moral Defintion/Confusion ( Re: Is this wrong, or what?
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:37:35 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1993Jan18.024557.10913@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1jahpsINNmsk@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>    >You know this all comes down to some type of morality
>    >defintion.
>    >
>    >If Magic and all of the women slept with, were 1) in
>    >agreement, 2) did it all with and within their own legal
>    >property.
>    >
>    >Then it is all moral, right?
>    >
>    >We have no business judging their personal lifes.

I am still at a lose with your position- you have stated that moralness
is the state of consenting adults, doing what they wish, with their
property.  So in your viewpoint, they are moral.

And it appears that your morality has no business or place judging other
people based on the above definition.

Remember, and as far as I know, it is not illegal to have sex with hundreds
of consenting individuals.

>
>Eh? Why not? Anytime you or I do business with another individual, we most
>certainly do judge thier personal lives. I would bet that if three
>individuals came up to you on some business or another, and if those
>three individuals were dressed as:
>
>    a. typical "college student"
>    b. American white power/NAZI uniform
>    c. SWAT team/DEA/Narc outfit
>
>that you would treat them considerably different.

Well, I would say in general, that b. and c. would not be a very
common event.

Let's change it a little and see if discriminating in these cases
seems rational.

	a. typical white housewife
	b. black man poorly dressed.
	c. a jew in typical orthodox wear.

So, now I see these people and believe that there is no rational 
reason to treat or react to them diffrently in a drastic way.
There is no reason for me to think or say that I will not do
business with b. or c., it just doesn't make sense.

Obviously we all react to different people in different ways.
We think someone is attractive, or we think they aren't.  But
I would not more ignore someone becuase they are not attractive,
or I would not make a statement in public, outloud, that such
and such is unattractive.

You always seem to pick extreme examples.  How many times have
you seen a white power/NAZI uniform, or been somewhere when a
SWAT team/DEA/NARC or whatever has shown up.  I would react to
last group since I would assume that they might be there for
a reason.

>    >We can however choose to make them media attractions and
>    >therefore purported role models. Or we don't.
>    >
>    >So unless you are prepared to condemn them becuase they acted
>    >(in your definitional scope) morally- then there is nothing
>    >more to say.
>
>Acting morally is NOT always acting properly or acceptably.
>

Hmm!  Well again this is the scope of your definition.  Since most
people take the defintion of morally to be connected to right and
wrong.  Therefore people cannot act morally and be acting wrongly,
or in your words, properly or acceptably.  

This is in general a 'moral relativist' approach.

>I'd say most people would agree that playing Russian roulette, literrally,
>is moral behaviour. If it's your gun and your ammo and your life.
>

No I believe if you apply your limited definition of moral behaviour, then
that would be true.  You need to look at the general defintion of morally.
It has to do with right and wrong, and how we judge that.  This type of
behaviour would be classified as wrong- since suicide is concerned wrong
or risk taking that appears to be out of the realm of everyday existence.

>But that is NOT behaviour that I want to be around, nor that I want any kids
>of mine around.

But if you call it moral, say around your childern, then it gets confusing.
What you wish to do is change the global defintion of the concept of morality,
I am not sure this is a good approach... you must come up with a term to replace
moral in the sense of right and wrong.

>
>What Elvis did, for example, is moral. But not acceptable. I certainly think
>it sends an unwise message to put a semiilliterate drug addict on a stamp --
>something I think should be reserved for (when the subject is people) people
>who are heroes.
>
>For example, how about Richard P. Feynman?
>
>

But again and I stress again- you have taken the notion of moral and made
it fit this condition.  So that if I state Elvis was moral- then people
believe he acted correctly and rightly.

Well since I do not have direct information or knowledge about R. Feynman's
private life, I can only make judgements based on his public life.  But if
he was, as purported, a womanizer, well it all depends on what he really
did.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:8354 ca.politics:10702 talk.politics.misc:70015