trc@houca.UUCP (08/29/83)
Response to Gary Samuelson: I think that your entire note was discussing *claimed* purposes. If one does not know what one's real purpose is for doing something, one will of course be unable to decide why one has done it - and so might make an arbitrary choice. Making one's choice arbitrary contradicts the heart of the concept of morality. One could as easily claim one did something because the grass is green, as claim that one was defending one's life. Real values are impossible, since their definition becomes circular - "a value is that which benefits something, and that which benefits something is a value" - there is no fundamental actual purpose for which things can *be* of value, or from which to define what is of benefit. The mere fact that one has some intuitive idea of what is of value does not change this from the ethical standpoint. If someone else disagrees with what one has claimed is to one's benefit, there is nothing immoral about them acting against what one has claimed - it is arbitrary. The whole concept of morality ceases to exist. However, claimed purpose is only a part of what I am writing about. I claim that one's accepted (claimed) purpose should be in accord with one's actual purpose, in order to be moral. I claim that one can know one's actual purpose. The origin of morality (the normativeness of having one's purpose in line with reality) arises from the fact that one cannot support one's life if one evades reality, and one's actual purposes are real. One's life is the fundamental value because no other values can exist without it. Its support is the source of one's actual purpose, self-benefit. Tom Craver houca!trc