cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) (06/08/85)
> Until you or I can find a distinct difference between the two, we should > continue to do so. (of Samet's and Nazis' intolerance) Sure, but I thought I found it (see below). You disagree with self-consistency test as the only way one can judge some morality system without using one's own morality to do it. All further disagreement stems from that. And you show us your way (see below). I can not accept it and will tell why. > > I do not see any other yardstick. (me on self-consistency) > > How about how successfully the morality provides for the needs of all the > people within the society? I like it. I do. I really do. Do I like it! What else can I say to justify acceptance of this dogma? > It would be the view of every person if they thought about their own > rights and the rights of others and carried the thinking through to its > logical consequences. ????????? What if I like "the Strong rule" and live by it? What logic could make me admit that there are "rights of others"? Please show us this logic. Mike Cherepov P.S. This chat is not at all related to any group but net.philosophy, unless you were more interested in Y. Samet's justification of his belief in Torah - a different issue entirely. Let's move.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/11/85)
>> Until you or I can find a distinct difference between the two, we should >> continue to do so. (of Samet's and Nazis' intolerance) > > Sure, but I thought I found it (see below). You disagree with > self-consistency test as the only way one can judge some morality system > without using one's own morality to do it. All further disagreement stems > from that. > And you show us your way (see below). I can not accept it and will tell why. > >>> > I do not see any other yardstick. (me on self-consistency) >> >> How about how successfully the morality provides for the needs of all the >> people within the society? > > I like it. I do. I really do. Do I like it! What else can I say to > justify acceptance of this dogma? I'm not sure. What is it you're looking for? >> It would be the view of every person if they thought about their own >> rights and the rights of others and carried the thinking through to its >> logical consequences. > > ????????? > What if I like "the Strong rule" and live by it? What logic could make > me admit that there are "rights of others"? Please show us this logic. "The strong rule" is a fact of life no matter which morality you subscribe to. A morality that serves the needs of all the people as much as possible will gain the support of those people, and the support of the vast majority of people should be enough deterrent to you if you choose to believe there are no "rights of others". And if it's not, the society should be strong enough to put a stop to any interference you might decide to evince. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) (06/11/85)
> > > > I like it. I do. I really do. Do I like it! What else can I say to > > justify acceptance of this dogma? > > I'm not sure. What is it you're looking for? Well, you propose to judge a morality system based on how well it serves individual's rights and public well-being (or some such good-intentioned phrasing). But where did you get that? Dracula's morality is for him to be able to drink lots of blood, no matter what the cost to the public. Your values set the tone. Genghis Khan likes different things - without a god to arbitrate you two, internal consistency of your moral outlooks is the only measure I see. > "The strong rule" is a fact of life no matter which morality you subscribe to. > A morality that serves the needs of all the people as much as possible will > gain the support of those people, and the support of the vast majority of > people should be enough deterrent to you if you choose to believe there are > no "rights of others". And if it's not, the society should be strong enough > to put a stop to any interference you might decide to evince. Well, by "the strong rule" I meant cruel disregard for others. You say that someone who subscibes to it is beaten into submission by vast majority. Sometimes it is so. But this is a suggestion to use such voting as the criterion for morals. It is an attempt to obtain absolute criteria to choose among more or less self-consistent opinions of morals. I see it as futile. Mike Cherepov ------- What do you think of a wise cruel man?
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/13/85)
>> > >> > I like it. I do. I really do. Do I like it! What else can I say to >> > justify acceptance of this dogma? >> >> I'm not sure. What is it you're looking for? > > Well, you propose to judge a morality system based on how well it serves > individual's rights and public well-being (or some such good-intentioned > phrasing). But where did you get that? > Dracula's morality is for him to be able to drink lots of blood, no matter > what the cost to the public. > Your values set the tone. Genghis Khan likes different things - > without a god to arbitrate you two, internal consistency of your > moral outlooks is the only measure I see. Your subject line asks the question "Is good logical?" I prefer not to cloud things with words like "good" and "evil". Everyone on this planet thinks the best morality is based on good. The problems occur when you ask each of them to define good. Logically, the MOST good would be accomplished by that system which is good to the most people over the longest period of time. When Genghis Khan and Dracula have killed everyone or taken all their possessions away or whatever, it's sort of like Dennis Moore taking everything from the rich and giving it all to the poor who are now rich so that... And what happens after they've died? (Dracula notwithstanding :-) You could even envision a system in which half the people of the world are given everything belonging to the other half, thus being real good for the first half but miserable for the other half. For a while, until, like the Romans whose empire was sacked and plundered and crushed by the barbarians, those who vanquished are now vanquished themselves. It would seem logical that the system that produces the most good for the most people for the longest time would work out to be the best (most good) in the long run. >>"The strong rule" is a fact of life no matter which morality you subscribe to. >> A morality that serves the needs of all the people as much as possible will >> gain the support of those people, and the support of the vast majority of >> people should be enough deterrent to you if you choose to believe there are >> no "rights of others". And if it's not, the society should be strong enough >> to put a stop to any interference you might decide to evince. > Well, by "the strong rule" I meant cruel disregard for others. > You say that someone who subscibes to it is beaten into submission > by vast majority. Sometimes it is so. > But this is a suggestion to use such voting as the criterion > for morals. No it isn't. Because it is the acts of interference on the part of the interferers that lead people to put a stop to them, NOT their "morality". -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/15/85)
>/* rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) / 5:17 pm Jun 12, 1985 */ >Everyone on this planet >thinks the best morality is based on good. The problems occur when you ask >each of them to define good. Is it not absurd to say that "the best morality is based on good," and then, afterwards, to define good? >Logically, the MOST good would be accomplished >by that system which is good to the most people over the longest period of >time. In order to maximize GOOD, we must select that system that is a member of the set of possible systems, such that the total good, i.e., the sum over all persons in the system of the good for each person, in the system is maximal. Your statement above fails to take into account the fact that within a given system, the good for all persons need not be equal. >It would seem logical >that the system that produces the most good for the most people for the >longest time would work out to be the best (most good) in the long run. This conclusion only necessarily follows from your examples given one of a set of possible assumptions regarding the power of each person, e.g., the assumption that each person has the same amount of power to change the situation to be in his favor. >"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Mike Sykora
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/17/85)
In article <1310021@acf4.UUCP>, mms1646@acf4.UUCP writes: > > In order to maximize GOOD, we must select that system that is a member > of the set of possible systems, such that the total good, i.e., the sum > over all persons in the system of the good for each person, in the system > is maximal. Your statement above fails to take into account the fact that > within a given system, the good for all persons need not be equal. > > Mike Sykora There is a hidden implication in this, perhaps, that there is some kind of universal good. Uh, uh. The set of possible systems could only be the set of systems possible from this given moment in time and place in space. That set is rather limited. The utilitarian impulse of summing over individuals, as Mike suggests, is also wasted because it suggests a world which is pragmatically impossible from this time-space moment. We inherit standards that place some individuals higher than others, and these standards cannot be thrown out as if we could separate ourselves from them. We can't. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/19/85)
>>Everyone on this planet >>thinks the best morality is based on good. The problems occur when you ask >>each of them to define good. [ROSEN] > Is it not absurd to say that "the best morality is based on good," and then, > afterwards, to define good? [SYKORA] But isn't that how it's done? All moral systems think of themselves as good, even those of Genghis Khan and Hitler. What morality says "We should all do these things because they are bad"? >>Logically, the MOST good would be accomplished >>by that system which is good to the most people over the longest period of >>time. > In order to maximize GOOD, we must select that system that is a member > of the set of possible systems, such that the total good, i.e., the sum > over all persons in the system of the good for each person, in the system > is maximal. Your statement above fails to take into account the fact that > within a given system, the good for all persons need not be equal. Need not be, but the goal IS to maximize nonetheless. >>It would seem logical >>that the system that produces the most good for the most people for the >>longest time would work out to be the best (most good) in the long run. > This conclusion only necessarily follows from your examples given one of a > set of possible assumptions regarding the power of each person, e.g., the > assumption that each person has the same amount of power to change the > situation to be in his favor. My examples do not draw on each person's "power". That is in fact irrelevant to an argument as to which is the way to maximize benefits. The fact that some may seem to have more "power" to accrue benefits is not at issue, as long as the morality and the society prohibits interfering/harmful/abusive methods of accruing benefits at others' expense. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
lkk@teddy.UUCP (06/21/85)
In article <1110@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: >>>Everyone on this planet >>>thinks the best morality is based on good. The problems occur when you ask >>>each of them to define good. [ROSEN] What about the Hell's angels. Their morality seems to be based on doing what is 'bad'. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (06/23/85)
>What about the Hell's angels. >Their morality seems >to be based on doing what is 'bad'. No, their morality (at least as distorted by the media; did you ever *meet* a Hell's Angel?) seems to be based on what you consider bad. Hell's angels consider various forms of conformity with society's norms as bad; they consider choppers, macho, beer drinking, carrying knifes, fighting for their honor, tattoos, and donating tons of children's toys as good. If they say, "yeah, he's really baaaad", they consider being "baaaad" as good, but they don't consider bad (as defined within their own morality) as being good (as defined within their own morality). That is why you had to put `bad' in quotes. The mistake comes from giving what *you* think is `bad' special status. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
lkk@teddy.UUCP (06/24/85)
In article <27500083@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP writes: > >>What about the Hell's angels. >>Their morality seems >>to be based on doing what is 'bad'. > >No, their morality (at least as distorted by the media; did you ever *meet* >a Hell's Angel?) seems to be based on what you consider bad. Hell's angels >consider various forms of conformity with society's norms as bad; they >consider choppers, macho, beer drinking, carrying knifes, fighting for their >honor, tattoos, and donating tons of children's toys as good. If they say, >"yeah, he's really baaaad", they consider being "baaaad" as good, but they >don't consider bad (as defined within their own morality) as being good >(as defined within their own morality). That is why you had to put `bad' >in quotes. The mistake comes from giving what *you* think is `bad' >special status. > >-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) No, that isn't what I meant. Since I haven't actually met a hell's angel (although I have met some Bikers) I may be wrong, but my impression is that if you ask a Hell's Angel "Are you a good person?" he's likely to answer, "No, I'm a mean son of a bitch". And be proud of it. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/24/85)
> In article <1110@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: > >>>Everyone on this planet > >>>thinks the best morality is based on good. The problems occur when you ask > >>>each of them to define good. [ROSEN] > > > What about the Hell's angels. > Their morality seems > to be based on doing what is 'bad'. [LARRY KOLODNEY] Ask them. Bad to you. I'm sure it's perceived as perfectly all right to them. And that's the point. -- Like a sturgeon (GLURG!), caught for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/25/85)
>/* tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) / 1:19 pm Jun 17, 1985 */ >> In order to maximize GOOD, we must select that system that is a member >> of the set of possible systems, such that the total good, i.e., the sum >> over all persons in the system of the good for each person, in the system >> is maximal. Your statement above fails to take into account the fact that >> within a given system, the good for all persons need not be equal. >There is a hidden implication in this, perhaps, that there is some kind >of universal good. If you look at the last sentence above, I think you will find that I was raising essentially the same objection. >Uh, uh. The set of possible systems could only be >the set of systems possible from this given moment in time and place in >space. That set is rather limited. I don't understand what this has to do with whether or not there is a universal good. >We inherit standards that place >some individuals higher than others, and these standards cannot be >thrown out as if we could separate ourselves from them. We can't. What do you mean by "standards?" Could you present some examples? >Tony Wuersch Mike Sykora
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (06/25/85)
>No, that isn't what I meant. Since I haven't actually met a hell's angel >(although I have met some Bikers) I may be wrong, but my impression is >that if you ask a Hell's Angel "Are you a good person?" he's likely >to answer, "No, I'm a mean son of a bitch". And be proud of it. Because he knows that what *you* mean by "good" is some wimpy pansy-assed goody-two-shoes notion, and he thinks that being a "bad", mean SOB proves he's a man, which is *good* by his standards. When you talk about "a good man", the word "good" is dripping with cultural connotation. Remember that this man is a rebel against the society in which he learned the words, so he will still use them the way that society uses them. Besides, I think you still have a jaundiced view; I think many would say that they take care of their woman and they mind their own business unless you get in their face, in which case they'll beat on your head (and probably welcome the excuse). -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
lkk@teddy.UUCP (06/28/85)
In article <1124@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> In article <1110@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: >> >>>Everyone on this planet >> >>>thinks the best morality is based on good. The problems occur when you ask >> >>>each of them to define good. [ROSEN] >> >> >> What about the Hell's angels. >> Their morality seems >> to be based on doing what is 'bad'. [LARRY KOLODNEY] > >Ask them. Bad to you. I'm sure it's perceived as perfectly all right to them. >And that's the point. >-- >Like a sturgeon (GLURG!), caught for the very first time... > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr I've already clarified this a number of times, but here goes again: My belief was, when I posted that article, that Hell's Angels actually beleived they were "bad" people. I wasn't using MY standards to judge them, this was just an (apparently mistaken) belief I had about their world outlook. Nevertheless, I'm sure you can find hardened criminals somewhere who will tell you that they do "bad" things just for the sake of being "bad". -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/29/85)
> No, that isn't what I meant. Since I haven't actually met a hell's angel > (although I have met some Bikers) I may be wrong, but my impression is > that if you ask a Hell's Angel "Are you a good person?" he's likely > to answer, "No, I'm a mean son of a bitch". And be proud of it. [KOLODNEY] As Jim Balter said, not "good" by your standards (and that's the point). Remember we're not dealing with a particular subjective moral viewpoint (i.e., yours) on what is defined as "good". Though they may never use the actual word, their position on their own morality is surely that the things they do are "good" from their perspective, from within their morality. Within any "society", the moral code, whatever it is, is deemed to be "good". -- Like a turban (HEY!), worn for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/05/85)
In article <1124@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> >>>Everyone on this planet thinks the best morality is based on good. >> >>>The problems occur when you ask each of them to define good. [ROSEN] >> What about the Hell's angels. >> Their morality seems >> to be based on doing what is 'bad'. [LARRY KOLODNEY] >Ask them. Bad to you. I'm sure it's perceived as perfectly all right > to them. And that's the point. Well, I think you have to ask the question of why THAT "good". My feeling (and one generally supported by psychiatric work) is that they live in reaction to what other people call "good". The reason why they approve of their own behavior is in fact because it is "bad" (i.e., someone else's bad). If you are going to construct a theory of pure moral relativism, you are going to have to face up to the fact that people do not hold to moral systems in a vacuum. I choose to follow a "liberal christian" sort of morality for a number of reasons; some are concious decisions, and some are subconscious. A decision to do something simply because someone else thinks it is wrong is clearly different from a decision to do the same thing because you think it is right; in the first case, the actor might very well disapprove of the act himself. It is well established that people do in fact do things which they themselves hold to be morally wrong. Therefore, I think that the case of "hell's angels" is much less clear cut than Rich seems to think it is. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe