[net.philosophy] The morality of morals -- some suggestions

mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (02/24/85)

Ms. Lauzon:

     Oi vay!  What a can of worms you have opened!

     I think that you need to tackle the following problems:

     What is *morality*?  Is it a set of rules governing personal
interaction?  All cases of personal interaction, or only some; and, if only
some, which cases and why the division?  Can actions be immoral simply
because of their affect on the acter (eg: drug abuse)?  Can actions be
wrong simply because of their affect on a non-person (eg: abuse of an
beast)?  I would define 'morality' such that all actions which affect
persons are covered by its rules, and that actions can only be defined as
moral or immoral in terms of the affects on persons (eg: I would hold beast
abuse as wrong because of its affect on the persons involved).
     What constitutes *prohibition*?  Here I think that you should deal
with the concept of 'property'; and, if you find it viable, introduce
concepts of 'coercion' and 'retaliation' defined in terms of property,
and both subsumed under the concept of 'force'.  Then you need to deal with
the morality of prohibitions which are non-coercive, coercive, and
retaliatory.  Don't forget to deal with the problems of prohibitting
prohibitions.
     With clear notions of 'morality', 'prohibition', 'property',
'coercion', and 'retaliation', I think that you can reach the following
conclusions:
          Not all immorality is morally prohibitable.
          Not all immorality which IS morally prohibitable is morally
          forcibly prohibitable.
          Some moral acts are morally prohibitable without being morally
          forcibly prohibitable.
          Some moral acts are morally forcibly prohibitable.
(An example where someone has argued that a morally forcibly prohibitable
act is nevertheless moral is given in *The Ethics of Liberty* by Murray
Newton Rothbard, in a discussion of Lifeboat situations.  Rothbard is a lousy
philosopher, but it's interesting to see a Libertarian presenting such an
argument -- and, anyway, it'll be good for a footnote!)

                                        Bye,
                                        Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
                                        The Nearly Unreachable

laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/27/85)

Here are some other questions which must be considered.

Are morals *necessary*?
In considering moral pronouncements is the basic unit the *individual*
or the *group*? 
Would an individual who does not interact with any other human
individuals (or, to take the ``group'' basic unit -- is not a
member of any society) be capable of immoral actions?
What is the authority of moral rules -- God(s)? The ability of the
proposer to use force agaisnt dissenters? somethng which is in
human nature?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura

ps -- moral systems are often classified by philosophers as being
``teleological'' or being ``deontological''. (the Natural Law 
philosophers want a separate category for themselves, as well.)
Make sure you know the difference because the arguments in support of one
are different from the arguments in support of the other. If you think that
a moral system should be both telelogical and deontelogical then you have
the problem of conflicts between the 2 principles...

Eric Mack is good reading on any of this.