At Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:20:25 -0600, you wrote:
>
>joe dees wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If by "zero-point" you mean cases or classes where all ethical systems would agree, the most likely candidates are the ancient prohibitions against murder, theft, rape, cheating and lying; yet even in these, exceptions can be found, which may be exceptions in some systems but not in others. Can you furnish an example of such a "zero-point"?
>> >
>> >
>> Joe E. Dees
>> Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
>>
>[Sorry if this misattributes]
>
>Can ethics even exist without multiple agents?
>If not then we've found a natural zero point in "ethics-space":
>The empty set describing the possible ethical interactions of
>non-interacting agents.
>
>Non-interaction is certainly A zero point. Of one axis at least.
>
We have already considered and rejected nonaction, or forbearance, or wu-wei (doing by nondoing) as a zero-point in this thread with the counterexample of the excellent swimmer who does nothing when hearing the entreaties of a drowning child. Such an absence of (inter)action would generally be considered morally deficient rather than neutral.
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher