From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:25:19 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct11.095641.19466@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
>Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
>Date: 11 Oct 92 09:56:41 GMT

>In article <92484@netnews.upenn.edu> stuart@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Joseph Stuart ) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct10.213730.14549@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>>Rather than being a slave to this conditioning, much of which is destructive
>>>and geared to producing mindless warriors, I think it's important to learn
>>>as much as you can about human nature, and from that develop a view of how
>>>you think a healthy society (this one isn't by a long shot) ought to function
>>>in order that each member of society can leave a peaceful and happy life.
>>>With this view of society in mind, you can then go on to develop a rational
>>>code of ethics.
>>
>>I agree with much of what you say about indoctrination, but perhaps you
>>haven't even gone far enough. This parpagraph assumes that you 
>>feel you have an obligation to each member of society, and that 
>>you (and everyone else) should structure his moral conduct for the 
>>greatest good.

>I can see how that phrase "each member of society" might have given
>you that impression, but it isn't the impression I intended.  I don't
>think that each person should strive for the greatest good, but rather
>that they should base their actions on enlightened self interest.  But
>I think it is in my best interest that others are peaceful and happy.
>It's hard for me to be peaceful and happy when my neighbours are violent,
>crazed lunatics.

>>How do you know that this is not just another case of indoctrination.

>I don't.  All I can do is to try to keep an open mind and keep gathering
>and critically evaluating information.

>>Is there any fundamental reason that we should all
>>be concerned about each other, or should it be every human for itself? 

>I think that we could all enjoy a better quality of life if we were to
>cooperate with one another, rather than competing with and exploiting
>each other.  I haven't yet figured out how that would be best implemented
>in practice though.

>>I suppose that you could argue that we should be evolutionarily pre-disposed
>>toward helping one another since we have similar genes.  But, that doesn't
>>make it very palatable.

>What's not palatable?  Helping one another?

>>I'm not really disagreeing with your post, just trying to serve up some
>>food for thought.

>It certainly tastes better than the regular fare. :-)
>--
>Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
>dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
>My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_

As a conservative rational moralist [and nontheist] I would want to take 
issue with the suggestion that the liberal western morality we have all 
inherited is to be jettisoned so blithely; certainly not merely on the 
ground that we have, at all events, inherited it and not excogitated it 
ourselves. This is true of language, of the scientific method, and the 
starting points of the western philosophical tradition on which any 
revisionary process would have to procede, as well the as the accumlated 
body of insights of enlightened commonsense.  The distinctions and patterns 
of reasoning within that moral system embody already much more careful 
reflection on "human nature" and "the good of human society" than anything 
we are likely to come up with in an afternoon.  Precisely because the need 
for being self-critical of one's morality is so important, we ought not to 
risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater by willy-nilly starting [per 
impossible] from scratch.

Also, let's not forget our moral philosophy 101, that there's a distinction
to be drawn between general normative moral standards and specific rules
which have been worked out to apply to specific situations by different
societies at different times.  Morality is not, after all, simply reducible 
to these rules--the mores.  There is the logical possibility that what may
require modification is *not* the moral base of the liberal western moral 
tradition, the fundamental moral principles and truths as such, but the 
moral rules bread into us and internalized by us since childhood.  Moral 
rules have a notorious tendency to solidify over time and become identified 
with, and so take on the status of, fundamental unalterable normative 
standards. Whence the tendency of untutored minds to identify morality with
a list of do's and don'ts.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////