gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (11/29/84)
> = Ken "Keep chargin'" Arndt > > [ originally "To Andy Banta" ] > > Can you explain to me why you are not caught in your own web? That is, you > set out rules on who to tolerate and who not to tolerate. But why should we > follow YOUR rules? "those who hurt only themselves are ok or those who hurt > others are not" I mean who are YOU to say what is right and what is wrong? > > You God? You got the bomb? You got 51% on your side? > > Where DO morals come from? You seem to be saying you can tell but why THOSE > morals and not others? Nature seems to say it's ok to hurt others in the > effort to survive, doesn't it? Is Nature a source of values? Is reason? > Is wishes? Is Tradition? Is Andy Banta? B F Skinner (my hero) said morals and morality are characteristics of a particular culture, and their purpose is to ensure the survival of that culture. They are, if you will, the defense mechanism that maintains cultural identity. So to say that "Thus and such is (morally) wrong" is to say "Thus and such is detremental or harmful to (will cause to change) my culture." Note that this is entirely relative. Human sacrifice in religious ceremonies was morally right to the Aztecs, and to disallow this would be to take part of their culture away. Unfortunately, Cortez took all of it away. Do not confuse "culture" with "civilization." -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam 37 22'50" N / 122 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ]
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/30/84)
In article <608@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) writes: >B F Skinner (my hero) said morals and morality are characteristics of >a particular culture, and their purpose is to ensure the survival of >that culture. They are, if you will, the defense mechanism that >maintains cultural identity. >So to say that "Thus and such is (morally) wrong" is to say "Thus and >such is detremental or harmful to (will cause to change) my culture." >Note that this is entirely relative. Human sacrifice in religious >ceremonies was morally right to the Aztecs, and to disallow this would >be to take part of their culture away. Unfortunately, Cortez took all >of it away. Does this mean that I have no right to judge the Nazis morally wrong, because I am a member of a different culture? I don't think I'm going to concede this right, because anyone can justifiably call themselves a culture of one. I also see a problem in that no person can then be considered to be more moral than his society. I should point out that all these difficulties are discussed in Bishop Krumm's _The Moral Climate_ [Forward Books; see your local Episcopal parish for a source], and have been batted around in the liberal theological community for years. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe