[from Tracy Harms (2006;08,18.13:30)]
Martin, that post was lovely. Some say that it is
inappropriate to post only to give appreciation for
another post, but I can't abide that minor moral
injunction in this case, and instead must compliment
you for having communicated that concept so nicely.
Everybody: I will be away from computer access,
travelling, for the next two weeks, so I will not be
able to make additional posts until I return.
Tracy Harms
···
--- Martin Taylor <mmt-csg@ROGERS.COM> wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2006.08.18.13.37]
>[From Richard Kennaway (2006.08.18.1603 BST)]
>So much for Friedman's view of morality. What
alternatives are
>there? I can think of three.
>
>1. Morality can be discovered by a priori
reasoning. The Tao is
>the body of theorems of morality. Some
philosophers have attempted
>this, but I believe with no succcess. Getting an
ought from an is,
>or from nothing at all, is not possible.
>
>2. Morality is what God wants us to do. It is
axiomatic that we
>ought to do it. (Some say that He wrote it in a
Book; others, that
>He wrote it in our hearts.) The Tao is what
mankind has discovered
>of God's will. This is C.S. Lewis' view.
>
>3. There is no such thing. "Right" and "wrong"
mean nothing more
>than "I like" and "I don't like". There is nothing
that anyone
>ought to do, or ought not to do. The Tao exists
because we are all
>more or less similarly constituted, and to that
extent want similar
>sorts of things. The commonality of moral views,
such as it is, is
>no more to be wondered at than the commonality of
our colour vision.I can think of a fourth, which makes more sense to
me than do 1 to 3.4. Morality consists of patterns of learned ways of
controlling
perceptions relating to the behaviour of other
people. Those patterns
that have been evolutionarily stable in relatively
closed societies
(the societies have not self-destructed yet)
constitute the morality
(and customs and manners) of that society. The
distinction between
morality and customs and manners relates to the
levels of the
perceptions controlled, though by virtue of the
likelihood that
severe impacts on other people are more likely than
gentle one to
disrupt the society, the major elements of morality
often concern
matters of life and death as well as of fairness in
property
transactions.According to 4., all social animals will have forms
of morality,
meaning ways to determine correct behaviour, such as
formation of a
pecking order, sexual rights, acceptable forms of
punishment for
deviance, etc.If 4 is correct, morality could be quite different
in different
societies, but the moral principles within one
society should be
likely to lead to less conflict within the society
than would those
principles with minor changes. But when people from
societies with
different moral principles interact, conflict,
perhaps severe, is to
be expected. Moreover, it will be hard for people on
either side of
that conflict to comprehend why those on the other
side can conceive
of behaving the way they do.I think we observe the effects suggested in the last
two paragraphs,
which follow directly from proposition 4, but which
seem hard to
accommodate within the frame of propositions 1 to 3
(although if
there are many different Gods, ithe observations
could be
accommodated by proposition 2).Martin
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around