From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Subject: Re: frightening ignorance
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:40:59
	<1992Jul20.174754.5253@news.eng.convex.com>
	<LEE.92Jul21150034@meercat.wang.com>
	<1992Jul21.211110.20382@news.eng.convex.com>


I think we may have carried this one far enough, so I'll excerpt pretty
brutally from Peter's reply, and add only a few notes:

Peter Cash writes:

   Why do you bring up "Judaeo-Christian dogma"? I didn't bring it
   up; morality can be taught--and understood--without reference to any
   faith. Do you think that teaching morality is somehow the same thing as
   teaching religion? 

I think that codification follows hard on explication in any social
matter, and that a large part of Western religion is the support and
transmission of supposedly "moral" codes.  One might say that the
question "how?" has partial answer in science (analysis and
model-building), the question "why?" a supposed answer in religion
(dogma), and that following any supposed explanation of what one ought
(morals), the thoughtful human asks "why?".  (Some anthropologists are
alert enough to ask "how?", instead.)

   I suppose you're arguing that teaching that war is morally permissible is
   inconsistent with teaching that resolving conflicts by violence is wrong.
   Maybe you're right. If you're right what follows from this? --Surely not
   that teaching morality is impossible; just that it is sometimes taught
   inconsistently. 

That it's _always_ been taught inconsistently.  That it always takes second
place to the gratification of the desires of the powerful.  That, given
to governments (including schools) to explicitly "teach", it's a sham, a
shadow of its real self (ooof! ugly tangled metaphor!).

   What would it be like to "offer" a common morality? Are you thinking of a
   set of rules? If so, then I would suggest to you that morality does not
   consist in rules. To share a common morality means to have a common
   understanding of what is and is not moral. This is not the same as having a
   common set of rules. 

To state something declaratively may always be to state "rules"  (I'm
neutral on this point, and don't much care.)

To say that there is a common understanding which _cannot_ be stated
in words seems absolute nonsense (or "religion", if you'd like another
word).  If you think there is a common morality, and that it is not "a
religious issue", you should be able to state what it is.

   I guess this comes under the heading of "if you have to ask, then you
   wouldn't understand even if I could explain it."

I was afraid of that.  That's what a disgruntled Jesus Freak says as a
last defense of his wild beliefs.  No sale.

   (And not even Mrs. Grundy was wrong about _everything_, you know!)

No.  But her approach was pedagogically unsound.

   Some people's views aren't worthy of consideration--and I think you and I
   would agree quite easily on who they are. 

I doubt that, but assuming that it's true, what makes you so sure?  Do you
really have that much respect for your own intuitions, as opposed to the
intuitions, arguments, and cultures of others?  I won't ask "why?", but...
how?

   >Viewing morality as interpersonal and social convention
   >(no perjorative intended there---I do believe that such convention is
   >a necessity to make this world bearable), I don't see it as wholly
   >pre-rational or intuitive, and certainly not as "revealed" to the members
   >of certain Abramic religions.  

   Again, I have to read things into what you're saying here. You seem to be
   saying that the opposite of the "rule-based" view of morality that you seem
   to oppose is the view that morality is "mere convention". I don't think
   that morality is as variable and as pliable as this view seems to imply. 

Why do you "have to read things into" what I write?  Where was the
"mere".  Does my characterization of morality as "a necessity"
diminish it to that stature, or are you using the old meaning of
"mere" as a synonym for "complete" (as in "things rank and gross in
nature possess it merely")?  It is my present opinion that morality is
primarily a human-created concept, though some part of it may be
"wired in" by biological evolution.  Clear enough?

   People who agree fundamentally on moral issues have fought many wars. My
   only point is that the existence of such wars does not make the common
   moral ground disappear.

Perhaps I have more of a behavioral definition of "morality" than you
do (the only alternative which comes to mind is a metaphysical,
pre-rational one, which would seem to lead us back into the question
of religion).  It seems to me that when and if "people who agree
fundamentally on moral issues" go to war against each other, the
supposed morality has evaporated (even if it _is_ pre-rational).  That
is not to say that I'm willing to agree that this happens: the First
World War, for example, seems to have been a case where the ethics of
rulers on all sides were contrary to the best interests of the rest of
the people, that is to say, wholly without "common morals".

   >>   You think morality can't be (or shouldn't be) taught.

   >I don't.  I _do_ think the utility of morality (though I'd really rather
   >use a less religiously-loaded word like "ethics") can be _shown_.

   Well, you know this is an old dispute. You must have really identified with
   guys like Callicles and Thrasymachus in the Platonic dialogues, no?  "Morals
   have their uses: they keep the masses in their place; but those who know
   this don't have to pay 'em any mind." I sure hope I'm misrepresenting you.

Did my substitution of "the utility of morality" for "morals" prompt
this peculiar distortion?  Why do you reach in every direction for a
political strawman?  I would suggest that to whatever extent morality
can be learned, it forms a mental (even emotional, as it is internalized)
checklist, akin to the checklists which a good pilot consults while
preparing for takeoff or landing.  To a large extent, then, it _is_ a
set of rules, even when not precisely formulated as such.  The rules
are not to "keep the masses in their place", though, but to act as a
double-check on one's own behavior.

I might ask in turn what your objection is to the notion of "rules".
You mention "Commandments" readily enough in this thread, and an idea
of the form "Thou shalt...", however totally internalized, would still
seem to be a "rule".

regards,
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------