Samael wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
Yes, you are correct EXCEPT in denying the existence of zero,
> 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
>
> Sorry, is that clearer?
Mike Lorrey