In article <C5sAD7.1DM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: > In <1993Apr20.004119.6119@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)  > writes: >  >>[reply to cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)] >>  >>>If morals come from what is societally accepted, why follow that? What >>>right do we have to expect others to follow our notion of societally >>>mandated morality?  Pardon the extremism, but couldn't I murder your >>>"brother" and say that I was exercising my rights as I saw them, was >>>doing what felt good, didn't want anyone forcing their morality on me, >>>or I don't follow your "morality" ? >>  >>I believe that morality is subjective.  Each person is entitled to his >>own moral attitudes.  Mine are not a priori more correct than someone >>elses.  This does not mean however that I must judge another on the >>basis of his rather than my moral standards.  While he is entitled to >>believe what his own moral sense tells him, the rest of society is >>entitled to pass laws spelling out punishments for behavior that is >>offensive to the majority. >  > Why? How? Might makes right? How can they force their morality on me? Why  > can't I do what I want? Who are they to decide? What if I disagree?    Well I agree with you in the sense that they have no "moral" right to inflict these rules, but there is one thing I might add: at the very least, almost everybody wants to avoid pain, and if that means sacrificing some stuff for a herd morality, then so be it.    >>  >>Most criminals do not see their behavior as moral.  The may realize that >>it is immoral and not care.  They are thus not following their own moral >>system but being immoral. >  > Good point, but it is being immoral in our opinion.  We don't let them choose, > we make the decision that their actions are wrong for them.  Right, and since they grew up and learned around us, they have some idea of our right and wrong, which I think must, in part, be incorporated.  Very rarely do you see criminal behaviour for "philosophical reasons"   >  >   For someone to lay claim to an alternative >>moral system, he must be sincere in his belief in it and it must be >>internally consistent.  Some sociopaths lack an innate moral sense >  > I admit to lean toward the idea of an innate moral sense, but have little basis > for it as of yet.  How far can such a concept be extended? >   (stuff deleted)  > Do you mean that we could say it would be wrong for us to do such a thing but  > not him.  After all, he was behaving morally in his own eyes and doing what he > chose.  On what basis do we condemn other societies besides, here's the buzz  > words, on the idea that there are some actions wrong for all humans in all  > societies? >  >>   Holding that morality is subjective does not mean >>that we must excuse the murderer. >  > Why not? Do we have to be objective suddenly? >>  >>David Nye (nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu).  Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire WI >>This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher >>must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell >  > MAC > -- > **************************************************************** >                                                     Michael A. Cobb >  "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois >     class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana >           -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu >                                                > Nobody can explain everything to anybody.  G.K.Chesterton --   best regards,  --Adam