From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Thu May 16 2002 - 13:40:53 MDT
Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin@tsoft.com]
Wrote:
Okay, when the List of Names is made, and the names
are named, don't worry, you're safe! Seriously, why
in the world would you be afraid (while arguing
against something) that you will be taken to be
a proponent? This really strikes me as though
you have some familiarity with Stalinism, e.g.,
guilt through association.
### See below.
Me:
> Remember, the contents of the archives will be
> around, to haunt Extropians for a long time.
Lee:
I have been Warned. Come the day when the Great Leader
calls all to account, indeed my goose is cooked. (But
then it has been, practically forever, anyway.)
### Actually, I didn't mean the WDD (Warning of Despotic
Destruction), I meant only wdd, the warning of derisive dismissal. The mere
participation in a debate seriously considering the legalization of
infanticide is likely to be seen by the mainstream public as kookiness, by
way of guilt through association.
But then, who cares about the mainstream, right?
--------
I'm not really that familiar with Silesian culture. ;-)
Okay it's a very old part of eastern Germany, I believe
but I guess that you're not being serious here. Did you
grow up there, or here?
### There. Not really German, either, especially
Oberschlesien where I grew up.
-----------
### This is totally at odds with moral reasoning as
expounded
### by almost all philosophers, from Plato onwards, until
the
### advent of moral relativism. Are you a moral relativist?
First, I totally disagree! I still can't believe that you
can
quote any well-known philosopher (except maybe Plato
himself,
the fascist) who explicitly states that the majority should
force its morality on the minority. No, philosophers are
always
discussing what *should* be accepted by people as moral.
Right?
### But, if they don't accept what they should accept, the
whip will crack. I'd rather ask you to provide me with names of the
philosophers who explicitly say force may not be used to enhance the
adherence to moral standards. I doubt you will find many.
--------
## This is indeed so puzzling as to be bizarre - murder
### not unethical?
Sorry for not being clearer: the *origin* of these has
little to do with their being unethical. As a counter-
example, lying is universally condemned as unethical, yet
we (wisely!) do not have laws against it. To repeat:
the laws arose evolutionarily, not necessarily because
some behavior was deemed unethical.
### But we *do* have laws against lying. Just try to lie on
your SEC, or IRS files. Or when applying for a loan. Or when engaging in any
commercial activity.
Now, I don't like to pull the dictionary trick but: ethics, 1 plural but
singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is
good and bad and with moral duty and obligation. (Webster)
Therefore, if any action is for any reason considered "bad", it is unethical
within the system used (by the dictionary definition of ethics), regardless
of whether it is lawful, evolutionary, or considered to be god-given.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:08 MST