From: cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane)
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:12:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.023140.24237@math.utexas.edu> mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan) writes:
>
>
>cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) writes:
>
>>>>[Deleted]
> (Mike Sullivan) writes:
>
>>>The same could be said for language, science and law. Should we scrap them
>>>as well?
>
>cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jim Cochrane) replies:
>
>>My point regarding moral systems was that they were not, on the whole,
>>serving a positive purpose; therefore (perhaps) they should be scrapped.
>>Language and science, on the whole, do serve a positive purpose (in my
>>opinion).  Thus there is no reason to scrap them.
>
>To which (Mike Sullivan) says:
>
>You said two different things: 1) scrap the concept of morality. 2) scrap
>moral systems. (2) does not imply (1). (1) is an absurdity as is it based
>on the premise that morality is BAD. But "bad" (or "not positive") is a
>moral concept. You can say "morality is bad" all you want, and it may be
>true, but in saying so, you except the concept of morality. 

I would say that, rather than being bad, morality is a weak concept whose
implementation (that is, as a moral system) often has negative results.
I think an analogy would be a software engineering team deciding to
reject a particular development methodology because it has too many
weaknesses.  They would explain their decision (at least, if they were
being precise) by stating that the methodology does not suit their
purposes and perhaps pointing out some potential problems that could
result from using it, not by saying it is bad.  I realize that "morality"
and "development methodology" are at different levels within their
respective hierarchical systems (morality is at a higher level), but
as far as I can tell, the analogy still works (Did that make any sense?).

As far as the application or implementation of the concept of morality
as a moral system, the only examples of moral systems I know of all
impose rules upon the individual from outside.  The individual is
expected to accept these rules without being given a sound explanation
or reason for the rule.  This seems to me to be analogous to teaching
an advanced mathematics class by presenting theorems without giving
a proof for each theorem or even mentioning that a proof exists.
>
>As for scraping moral systems, I put forth that since this is not going to
>happen any time soon why not focus on making them more consistant?

I don't disagree with this, though perhaps I would add, along with making
them more consistent, making them less harsh and judgemental and less
programmed (in the sense of "this action is always wrong", for example).

I also agree that it is impossible to just eliminate existing moral systems
(which would be much more difficult than overthrowing a government), but
I think that they can be abandoned on an individual level.
>
>Indeed I challenge you to describe how modern society, (i.e. one with industry,
>trade, art, science etc.) would fuction without any moral codes or principles.
>Of course some would argue that we are living in just such a society! Perhaps
>we should call the "moral structures" of today, "pre-morality".

How about presenting systems of what might be termed guidelines, rather
than rules, and encouraging each individual to discover for himself
his potential for right action with the help of these guidelines.  If
a guideline is found to not make sense, it should be discarded.
>
>Mike Sullivan
>mike@math.utexas.edu

Jim Cochrane
cochrane@spot.Colorado.EDU