From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: The Myth Of Morality
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:27:48 GMT

In article <9699.29E766FA@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Rice) writes:
>Tag: Michael I Bushnell
> 
>MIB> "Morality consists in applying the absolutes of love found
>MIB> in the Summary of the Law given by Jesus to particular cases
>MIB> and situations."
> 
>You mean =ONE FORM= of morality. Humanity had moral codes of
>love, kindness, and compassion long before the period jesus
>is said to have existed. I have a very high, stringent, and
>unbending moral code which I follow, that did not require
>occultism based on jesus, or gods, or any mysticism; it is
>based on my firm belief that I have an obligation to society
>to conduct myself morally and ethically. No gods. Few jesus
>followers could match the commitment to morality and ethics
>I have chosen to follow.
> 
>My observation being: morality does not stem from your occultism,
>nor occultism in general--- I am free from god nonsense, and I
>am moral.

You need to be careful here.  Whether or not you happen to be "moral"
depends entirely on what you mean by "moral".

The problem is that the very definition of "moral" is slippery.  "Moral"
means different things to different people.  What is "moral" to you
may very well be "immoral" to someone else, and vice-versa.

Thus, when you say "I am moral", the first interpretation that springs to
my mind is that you consider yourself moral by your own standards of
morality.  But such a thing is something I would consider a given, i.e.
true of everyone.  I know of nobody who does *not* consider themselves
to be "moral" by their own definition.

Thus, I am led to seek alternative interpretations.  One such is that
"I am moral" means "I am moral *by your standards*".  This statement
is of considerably more significance than the trivial interpretation
I've given in the preceding paragraph.

And, of course, it is probably not a completely accurate statement.
There are undoubtedly some things that you would consider "moral"
that Mr. Bushnell would consider "immoral" and vice-versa.  Nevertheless,
I believe I understand the intent of your statement: that in many ways,
your morality matches that of Mr. Bushnell, *despite* the fact that
your basis and his differ considerably.

This is, I think, a very important point (if it is indeed the point
you were trying to make).  There are a great many similarities between
the moralities of different people.  One of the most common moral
viewpoints is that it is wrong to kill another human being unless
your own life is on the line.  This is something most people seem to
agree with, despite the fact that there is such a huge diversity of
moral bases among these same people.

I think there is a good reason for this kind of overlap: rules such
as these allow society to function more smoothly, and thus to
prosper relative to a society in which such rules are not considered
valid.  Thus, these rules tend to survive and propagate better than
their opposites, since the individuals who share the belief in the
validity of these rules tend to survive and propagate better than
those who believe in the opposite rules.

And it seems to me, too, that the less of an impact a given rule has
on the prosperity of a society, the less agreement there will be on
that rule by members of that society.  Thus, while there is major
agreement that the killing of others when there are no lives on the
line is generally a bad idea, there is not nearly as much agreement
about sex before marriage being a bad idea (at least in recent times,
when sex does not have a high probability of yielding a pregnancy and
all the consequences thereof).

Does this sort of progression sound familiar?  It should, given the
newsgroup.  :-)

>MIB> "As human society changes, the morally optimal way of making
>MIB> that application will change as well. In other words, God's
>MIB> nature is eternal, but morality consists in its application
>MIB> to human situations, which are embedded in ever-changing
>MIB> social contexts. As a result, the application of the eternal
>MIB> commandments of love is continually changing in nature. Only
>MIB> at the Day of the Lord will human society reach its epitome,
>MIB> and then, only by the direct intervention of God. Only then
>MIB> will the demands of morality become static."
> 
>Sounds like the perfect dictatorship (George Bush and Stalin would
>be proud). People define a society's morals--- and people are not
>static. Morals =MUST= remain dynamic to meet ever changing obsticles
>and challenges a thriving, growing, living society must face.

Alternatively, it (a society without obstacles or challenges) sounds
like a very boring society.

>David Rice
>Internet: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
>Compuserve: >internet:David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)