From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism and morals and dating
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:01:02 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


In article <1992Nov16.163635.25898@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>
>
>In article <XXuBuB6w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>|> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
>|> > In article <1992Nov13.233958.17643@nmsu.edu> epowers@huey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) w
>|> > >	Just curious, I'm not attacking you.  What's "immoral" or "wrong" (or  
>|> > >whatever word with negative connotations you want to use) about drinking, do
>|> > >drugs, or sleeping around?  What do you use to distinguish "moral" vs.  
>|> > >"immoral"?
>|> > 
>|> > That is a fairly easy one.  Culture has placed certain standards on individua
>|> > behavior.  These standards define what is moral and what is immoral.  They
>|> > define what is right and wrong.  These standards may not make much sense
>|> > to an outsider, but within that society, that societies standards define
>|> > the collective morality.  So if society decided that reading internet
>|> > was very bad.  (Note I mean the collective society, not just a few individual
>|> > , then it would become immoral or in some way wrong to read internet.  Things
>|> > do change.  Look at relations between people of different skin pigmentation
>|> > in the past 50 years to see how fast "wrong" can change.
>|> 
>|> I see.  So in the context of Germany around 1940, it is entirely moral to gas
>|> Jews?
>|> 
>|> I'm not entirely sure I like your definition of morality...
>|> 
>|> 
>|> mathew
>
>Why not?  I siad the society as a whole, not just a few people didn't I?
>You will find that many people claimed to have no knowledge of what
>was happening in the concentration camps, even though they lived a few
>miles away only.  People didn't want to know.  
>
>COME UP WITH A BETTER ONE.  If you don't like that definition, give a better
>one, don't just say it is wrong.  Show why my definition doesn't fit
>the general and collective use of that term.
>:)M^2

This suggests that it would then be moral to execute people by public disembowling
if they failed to go to church.

Provided that society as a whole (ie (I assume you mean) a >2/3 majority.)

If there is a definitive 'Right' it has no obligation (according to your
definition of morality/imorality) to in anyway resemble the societies view
of what is moral/immoral.

It would therefore be incorrect to say that someone is doing something 
absolutely 'wrong' if they are acting (according to society) immorally.

So claiming superiority by acting morally is meaningless.  You could easily
be acting 'wrong' in an absolute sense.

Should there not be an absolute 'right' and 'wrong' then acting morally is 
merely a decision that is essentially self-concerned.
'Will I goto prison/be excommunicated/be shunned/feel very guilty if I get caught
doing X'

The definition you have suggested totally divorces morality from concepts of
what is good/bad.  Are you sure you aren`t thinking of peer pressure? :-)

Dave.

Nb.- Witty Quote goes here.

	D.Butcher@ncl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic