Re: virus: maxims and ground rules and suppositions

psypher (
Wed, 19 May 1999 00:39:28 -0400 (EDT)

> Ahh psypher, where do I begin?! Well first, I must say that you are
> more fun to arg. . . uh, . . . have an intelligent discussion with,
> than anyone I've encountered in quite some time!

...that's more or less the point.

> Next, you may have taken my point here just a bit out of context. I
> do believe that a society needs rules and structure. 'matter of
> fact, in some ways I can be quite conservative. I just can't figure
> out why the CoV needs a "moral code" by which to make "value
> judgments".

...well, why should anyone abide by the rules and structure of your hypothetical socity then? How do we decide which course of action is better or worse than any other course of action? Why does a society need rules and structure?

> The U.S. is probably the most puritanical Western society on the
> planet. I believe the CoV is attempting to view and address the
> world in a less restrictive frame-work.

...I think puritanism and fundamentalism are both rampant here.

> Aren't we all adults here (I include amir, age 14, in this
> "judgement" because to my way of thinking, he conducts himself in a
> manner pretty much on a par with the rest of us)?

...well, presumably. But what do you mean by "adult"?

> Well more to the point, why should you kill me?? To win an

...why not? Perhaps because I would find the act of killing you pleasurable. [some people do] Perhaps the worldview I hold values the world without your sort of person in it more than the world with your sort of person in it. Perhaps because I judge the state of affairs brought about by your death to be superior [on some identified, measured, phenomenological basis] than the present state of affairs.

What I am advocating is a form
> of "self governing".

...then what role does your consciousness play? What significance do the choices you make have?

I am not against maxims. I am not against a set
> of rules which define a social structure as a whole. What I am
> against is a bunch of rules for the sake of rules. argument there.

And I am even
> more against pretty much anything which is going to encourage
> "judgements".

...every assertion you make about value is a judgement. You act to promote those things you judge "good" and to discourage those things which you judge "bad". On what basis do you make these decisions? ...if you do not make these decisions, how is it that you have got to a position of adulthood without coming to any conclusions at all about value?

Personal opinions, yes. "Shoulds", no.

...Hitler had an opinion [to grab the most blatant example]. Jeffery Dahmer had an opinion. We *value* the opinions of these people less than the opinions of other people. Obviously there is some intent to make judgements here. On what is it based?

-psypher Fastmail's Free web based email for Canadians