Why is that a bad assumtion? How else could one judge if something is
good in the first place?
You may assume this, but your assumption constitutes no
> sweeping victory for consequentialist ethics.
>
I'm suprised this is even an issue of contention. It seems self evident
to me.
> Nate also wrote:
There are apparently two Nates out there. Just call me The Nateman to
avoid some confusion
>
> "Hegel was a favorite of the communists. He provided the poisoned water
> from which they choose to drink."
>
> Darwin was a favorite of eugenicists, laize faire capitalists, and
> CoVers. That doesn't mean that Darwin was affiliated with or
> sympathetic to any of those causes.
>
I don't mean to imply that Hegel would be happy with the communists. I
imply the communists seem to have been quite happy with Hegal.
The Nateman
>