From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Abortion:  My Views
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:40:23 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <lad8ocINN83a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM writes:

> In article <1992Sep3.175113.6036@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> >In <lach7lINN577@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
> >> In article <1992Sep2.221028.11532@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >>>>>> Legislated morality doesn't work.  
> 
> >>>>> Then are you against legislating in the areas of homicide, 
> >>>>> rape, and theft?
> 
> >>>> These are not necessairly moral issues.
> 
> >>>If homicide, rape, and theft laws are not based upon morality,
> >>>then what are they based upon? 
> 
> >> They are based on the need to restrict certain behavior in order to
> >> improve the functioning of the society. This is not a moral issue,
> >> it is a social issue.
> 
> >  Okay, but what makes certain "social structures" better than others?  
> 
> Define "better". Once we have done that, we can examine your question
> in greater depth.
> Better for the survival of the society? Better for the well being of
> the individual? 

  "Better", as I thought I indicated below, is in the eye of the beholder(s).
It is indefinable, IMO, in this context.  WE have ideas of what "better" is,
but they are defined by by our moralities and ethics.

> >  Methinks it rests in the eyes of those who behold the society -- who cannot
> >but make certain judgements based upon thier moral views.  How should society
> >function?  What defines a well-functioning society?  I submit that people of
> >differing moralities will supply different definitions of what this means,
> >especially when you start applying them via laws and such.
> 
> I agree that different people view the purpose of society differently.
> That's why I put forth my question in the last paragraph.
> 
> I for one don't believe much in the concept of morality, because it is
> inherently subjective. I'm somewhat more comfortable with the concept
> of ethics, because I don't see ethics commonly being attributed to
> an unprovable spirit being.

  Hmmm, but is not a particular set of ethics also inherently subjective?  I
feel morality and ethics are but two sides of the same coin.  Ethics are 
defined by your morality and your morality is based upon your ethics.  I think
if the only reason you like "ethics" as opposed to "morality" is the religious
aspect, then I think you are fooling yourself.  I don't really consider the
two to be different.

> This all tends to fall into the point I was origionally trying to get
> across, that laws should not be based on "moral" positions, but
> rather pragmatic ones. I think that is the case with most cases of
> homicide, rape, and theft. 
> Eric
 
  Pragmatics based upon what, though?  That which allows a society to function
best?  Then what kind of society?  What functions?  What defines "smoothly
function"?  Our brand of pragmatism is based on our feeling of what is best,
defined by -- you guessed it -- our morals and ethics.

  I would agree that you shouldn't legislate morality.  But then, that's a 
moral/ethical judgement on my part.  We're trapped.  Isn't this fun? :-) 


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************