Does anyone ever consider, when trying to base all on some golden rule, that
people do not all like the same things? For example, I would like someone to
make me some sort of Spinach dish.... there are many for whom this would be
There is more involved in ethics than a simple consideration of one's own
There is more involved in ethics than a simple consideration of one's own desires.
From: KPJ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: Rational base for morals
>|Simply put: "Do not to others what you do not wish them do to you."
>It appears as if den Otter <email@example.com> wrote:
>|Unless, of course, you happen to be vastly more powerful. Then
>|there is no _rational_ reason to restrict your actions.
>One might wish to avoid killing random less powerful entities if one
>finds them worth avoid killing for some reason. As a matter of fact,
>one would only kill them if one had a rational reason to do so. This
>assumes of course that one only makes rational decisions.
>Personally, I find no reason to kill off less powerful entities unless
>they try to hurt me. Their species would hardly become more sentient
>by killing off them if they disturb me. If they do, I could simply
>remove them from the premises.
>My wiring makes me wish to increase my knowledge of the world. A greater
>number of species and individuals in the world allows for more complexity
>and thus makes the world more interesting to me. This would indicate to
>me that I should avoid killing off less powerful entities, since I find
>pleasure in increasing my knowledge of the world, and their evolution to
>a higher power would make them and/or their species more interesting later.
>If you lack this incentive your mileage may vary, naturally.