Re: Property and life

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Samael

Samael wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick.Gray@bull.com <Dick.Gray@bull.com>
> To: extropians@extropy.com <extropians@extropy.com>
> Date: 14 January 1999 16:35
> Subject: Re: Property and life
>
> >
> >
> >I wrote:
> >>There's no "right" or "wrong" way to construct a bridge, say? We can
> >>achieve our purposes in any arbitrary fashion?
> >
> >Samael replied:
> >>Sorry, I thought we were talking about morals
> >
> >We were, but you did write: "There is no 'right', 'wrong', 'valid',
> >'invalid', 'good', 'evil' EXCEPT within moral systems_" (emphasis mine).
> >
> >Was that a slip of the pinkie, then?
>
> sorry, i'll rephrase:
>
> When we are talking about morals, 'right', 'wrong' ,etc. only make sense
> relative to a particular moral system. In the same way that a speed is
> always relative to an observer or other frame of reference, an action is
> only right relative to a particular moral framework: ie some actions are
> perfectly reasonable under a utilitarian framework, but completely
> unreasonable under a christian framework. You have to look at the action
> and see what the framework says about it rather than the action being right
> or wrong seperate to that framework.
>
> Sorry, is that clearer?

Yes, you are correct EXCEPT in denying the existence of zero, a natural moral fixed point within the moral space continuum from which all others can relate and which binds the moral continuum to real behavior in the real universe. Even in relativity space there are absolutes, like the speed of light, the Planck length, etc...

Mike Lorrey

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Samael