From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Moral propagationism
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:26:18 GMT

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.

>-- 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
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?

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

>Contrast this with the attempt to base an analysis of the acceptability
>of moral systems (at least in part) on the limiting factors imposed
>ala sociobiology.  This approach *may* be incorrect, but at least it
>is not empty.

In fact, the two methods go hand in hand.  The limits of sociobiology
are flexible, not strict.  How can we judge the cost of bending these
limits if we don't have a rational way to judge morality?

If moral propagationism were "empty" it would be nihilism, but
in fact it provides consistent way to judge all moralities, moral 
judgements and behaviors, something that cannot be said for any other 
moral philosophy.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta