From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 10:49:18 GMT

In article <C0ACKI.9xw@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>In article <1993Jan03.020137.27692@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>>Milo D. Cooper (mdc@crash.cts.com) wrote:
>>: In article <1992Dec31.232748.9736@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mik
>>e A. McAngus) writes:

>>: o> Meaningless question since matters of ethics, morals, and philosophy are
>>: o> not provable as right or wrong.

That's absurd on the face of it.  Your statement is itself a matter of
philosophy and if you claim that it is an unproven assertion, it has no
force.

Indeed, philosophical ideas CAN be proven right/wrong.  Perhaps you would
like to prove me wrong in this regard?

>>:    On the contrary, Mr. McAngus, I can safely point out that the
>>: abolition of slavery was a good thing, especially since I'm a black male.
>>: Only a political anarchist would dare declare that ethics and morals are
>>: beyond judgment.  

Actually, it is ethical nihilists who do so.  Many of them tend to be
political anarchists too (or worse) but literally speaking, your comment is
incorrect.

>>: Please support this assertion of your's with a lucid and
>>: obvious example or two, or better yet, prove my submission that slavery
>>: is immoral false.

>>A) I said "provable", as in provable from universally accepted axioms.

Why adopt such a standard?  There are not axioms which are universally 
accepted.  That does not mean that there are no correct axioms, of course,
only that there are some people out there who disagree with valid axioms.
(For example, there are those who say that no axioms, proofs, or propositions
are true.)

>There are two general means
>of deriving one ethical behavioral standards. One is religious, the other
>secular. Since liberals and libertarians have a *fit* at the meer
>mention of the Bible I'll confine my remarks to "secular morality".

I would characterize the two distinctions as "rational" and "irrational", and
religious moral systems are just a special case of the second category.

>Secular morality is obeying the laws (criminal) that govern our 
>society. 

Rubbish.  There are all manner of secular views of morality (many wrong ones
included), and only a few of them are of the collectivist bent you 
described.

>These laws where legislated by *our* representatives. If a group 
>feels this laws infringe on their rights then an appeal to the counts
>is an effective recourse. Organizing into special interest groups so 
>as to effect change at legislator level is also popular.  The bottom
>line is that secular morality is defined in criminal law statues, and 
>represents the will of society. 

That's completely false.  I subscribe to a secular moral theory and yet
I completely disagree with the view of morality you described (which
amounts to "morality is whatever the government says it is").  I think 
that moral choices are ones which are as a matter of objective fact
are to your self-interest.  I guess I (and the other objectivists out there)
don't fit into your little scheme very well.

I could go on along the same lines, but I think my point is pretty clear.
Social subjectivism is not the only alternative to religious morality.
To wit:
   individual subjectivism
   emotivism
   hedonism
   egoism
   nihilism
   Platonic idealism
   traditionalism
   ...and many many others

>People take quite seriously the secular immorality of homosexual
>sex. Even Washington D.C. has laws against sodomy. The reason these laws are
>not enforced is that people take an individuals right to privacy more 
>seriously. Try engaging in sodomy at the town park and see what happens.
>Does the fact that the overwhelming majority of society feel that 
>engaging in homosexual sex is criminal make it secularly immoral? You bet
>is does, by definition. Will sodomy always be criminal (immoral) in our
>society? Who knows, but until laws against sodomy are repealed, sodomy is 
>secularly immoral, period.

Oh really.  What if the laws change?  Will it suddenly become moral?

>There is not a law against being a homosexual, hence being a homosexual is
>not secuarly immoral. There is no law that singles out homosexuals. It is
>particular sexual *conduct* that is criminal, secularly immoral.

That's the first half-sensible thing you have said.  While it is true
that it is conduct rather than ideas which ought to be the subject of law,
I think you have a very distorted view of the relationship between law
and morality.  Just how do you think they are related?  Does one define the
other?  If so which?  Is one an extension of the other?  Or what?  I have 
my own view which you will probably read soon.

>Yes heterosexual sodomy is also immoral.

On what grounds?  That there are laws against it in some places?  (Anachronistic
ones to boot, I might add.).  Tell me, on what grounds ought people consider
changing these laws?  If law defines morality, then what ought to define the
law?  Arbitrary emotional opinions?  Tradition?  Blind luck?  Religious
fairy tales?

--Brian
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion