Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> writes:
"urf <urf@nospam.com>" asked the question in the subject, and "Chrys <notarealaddress@lycos.com>" suggested: Define immoral first off. Well, I'll take my definition from Ambrose Bierce's _Devil's Dictionary_:

Giving the Devil's Dictionary its due (and it is often amusing),
others have convincingly talked about what is "right" and what is
"wrong" in terms of

something is immoral if it causes harm to others

Now this definition is obviously incredibly incomplete, and begins
innumerable questions (weighing harm to some against good to others,
weighing harm to oneself against harm to others, measuring and
interpreting harm, etc.).

Nevertheless, I have to say I prefer this as an ethical starting point
over Urf's (leave it to the zealots) or Bierce's (cynicism) point of
view.



Of course for the religious there is also the possible starting point

something is immoral if (I believe) my god has declared it to be.

This often seems to work well when applied to the believer, but less
well if the believer insists on applying it to those that don't
believe in the believer's god.

And for the bitter and twisted of the world (of whom there are far too
many):

something is immoral if someone I dislike finds it acceptable.

"Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>" commented on definitions of
"immoral":
[O]thers have convincingly talked about what is "right" and what is "wrong" in terms of something is immoral if it causes harm to others [...] Of course for the religious there is also the possible starting point something is immoral if (I believe) my god has declared it to be.

To many (most?) religious people, these two are the same thing. God
declares something immoral because it is harmful, even if we can't
understand just how. Obviously an omniscient and loving creator can be
trusted on such questions, because let's face it he IS omniscient and
you'd really have to be a goofball to turn down advice from someone who
knows everything that has happened or ever will.


You might like "Is God A Taoist?", by Raymond Smullyan (excerpts can be
found in _The Mind's Eye_, ed Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett).
God offers to make someone a parallel universe in which he can do
anything he wants without repurcussions. The man can be horribly evil
and will face no punishment at all.

The fellow offers various excuses for why he wouldn't do it ("I'd feel
guilty afterwards"), and God eliminates them ("I'll erase your memory so
you won't remember it and thus you won't feel guilty"). The discussion
between God and the person getting the offer is entertaining and
enlightening. Eventually, God strips away all the excuses and the man
finally understands the REAL reason why it doesn't want to do it.

Definitely worth the time. (In my experience, any book by Smullyan or
Hofstadter is worth the time.)


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"I now introduce Professor Smullyan, who will prove that either he
doesn't exist or you don't exist, but you won't know which."
-- Melvin Fitting

Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> writes:
"Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>" commented on definitions of "immoral": [O]thers have convincingly talked about what is "right" and what is "wrong" in terms of something is immoral if it causes harm to others [...] Of course for the religious there is also the possible starting point something is immoral if (I believe) my god has declared it to be. To many (most?) religious people, these two are the same thing. God declares something immoral because it is harmful, even if we can't understand just how. Obviously an omniscient and loving creator can be trusted on such questions, because let's face it he IS omniscient and you'd really have to be a goofball to turn down advice from someone who knows everything that has happened or ever will.

I don't know if they're really the same thing or not. But it doesn't
matter; if you define morality using your idea of explicit messages
from god, then you aren't going to be willing to compromise on issues
that don't harm others.
You might like "Is God A Taoist?", by Raymond Smullyan (excerpts can be found in _The Mind's Eye_, ed Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett). God offers to make someone a parallel universe in which he can do anything he wants without repurcussions. The man can be horribly evil and will face no punishment at all.

I haven't read that. Except I read "The Mind's Eye" about a billion
years ago, so maybe I read bits of that then.

But I agree, Smullyan and Hofstadter (and for that matter Dennett) are
usually good value.

True -- on those issues on which you believe God has spoken
nequivocally -- either for the moment or for all time. As time goes on,
there seem to be fewer and fewer of them...

(I do like my wife's way of putting that. When we were very little children
our parents gave us some rules -- like don't leave the house without one of
us with you -- because we could not be expected to make the right decisions
without them. As adults we've thrown most of those rules out -- some even
because they get in the way of our doing what we are *really* supposed to
do. As human society is growing up, God is similarly starting to trust us
to make more decisions correctly on our own and doesn't need to blanket keep
us away from situations we can't handle.)

Ted

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yw1xphjgwc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... I don't know if they're really the same thing or not. But it doesn't matter; if you define morality using your idea of explicit messages from god, then you aren't going to be willing to compromise on issues that don't harm others.