From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Moral propagationism
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:17:39 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Sep29.092618.10833@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
|> In article <BvAu0w.84q@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> >
|> >I think it is pretty clear at this point that the position of "moral
|> >propagationism" is simply a restatement of the most thoroughgoing
|> >moral relativism 
|> 
|> This isn't clear at all; it is rather false. Does there exist
|> any philosophy that establishes the same criterion for morality set
|> forth by moral propagationsism?  Does there exist any relativistic 
|> system besides m.p. that allows us to measure every morality by an
|> objective standard?  I think not.

Measure?  Objective standard?  

|> >-- and offers us nothing more than the original
|> >position.
|> 
|> What does the original position offer us in the way of criterion for
|> morality and insight into moral systems?  Moral propagationism offers

Nothing.  This is precisely my point.

|> a way to evaluate every morality, moral judgement, and behavior.
|> I've already describes some of the consequences for issues like
|> adultery, birth control, population, extinction, and the teaching of 
|> children that are the meat of practical morality and religion.  I've
|> described how the morality of specific religions can be determined,
|> and started exploring the evaluation of specific religious doctrines.
|> That's just the tip of the iceberg.  What "moral relativism" matches the
|> prescriptive capability of moral propagationism?

All of your "explanations" are post-hoc.  Your theory has approximately
the same explanatory and predictive force as numerology.

|> >It is strikingly similar to a simple-minded statement
|> >of what many people think is Darwinian evolutionary theory:  The
|> >fit surive. 
|> 
|> No, this seems to be your interpretation, since you called it
|> a "tautology" when, like natural selection, it most certainly
|> is not.  Natural selection and propagation are processes that
|> are described by temporal logic and algorithms, not by first-order 
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> predicate calculus. You have not pointed out any errors in the proof 

Do you in fact have a formal theory here?  I would be most interested
in seeing it.  Please post both the axiom set and the semantics.  A
sketch of the soundness and completeness results would also be of great
interest.  This would provide an excellent basis for evaluating your
claims about the theory.  I applaud you for developing such a system.

|> of the basic statement or in the reasoning of consequences from the 
|> basic statement. It sounds like you just want to wash your hands of 
|> the new, strange beast instead of exploring its consequences, I am 
|> sad to say.
|> 
|> >And by the way, this implies moral relativism.
|> 
|> It is a relativistic standard.  It is the opposite of
|> nihilism, because it provides a rational way to judge the
|> morality of every act.  Furthermore, you have not defined

This is absolute nonsense.  For any act, there is a context in which
it is moral.

|> "moral relativism", or why moral propagationism matches
|> that definition.

This is pretty elementary.  Do we really need to rehash this?  As
I recall, it was *you* who explicitly described the relativistic
consequences of the position.  In the first paragraph above you *concede*
that your view is a relativistic position.


-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm