laura@utcsstat.UUCP (07/10/83)
Ed Pawlack writes:
Your examples of the masochist, heroin addict, and crocodile
worshipper (an Izod preppie?) are examples where the action is not
thought to be in the interest of the other person.
Sorry, but you cant conclude this. All I can say is that *you* feel that
masocism, heroin addiciton, and crocodile worship are not in the best
interest of the other person. This is not the same thing as CONCLUDING
that they arent.
Either you have a fast and firm rule for demonstrating what is in other
people's interests, (in which case we all need to learn about this rule)
or you are concluding that whatever MOST people believe is
in the best interest of the other person, IS what is in the best interest
of the other person. A lot of people believe this, and this may be the
only way goodness and badness is actually measured, but you didnt *say*
this.
I am going to abandon the heroin addict and the masochist and concentrate
on the crocodile worshipper. Suppose that the best spot in heaven was
reserved for the crocodile dinners, while the second best spot was reserved
for those who made others crocodile dinners. Suppose that the only way you
could get to become a crocodile dinner was at the hands of another person.
(No suicide allowed, or suicides get the crummiest spot in Hell).
Now, if I enter the picture, and the crocodile worshippers all love me
thaey may want to give me the best honour - and feed me to the crocodiles!
If you try to stop the worshippers on the grounds that it isnt in my best
interest to be eaten, you are interefering with what is considered the
ultimate good in the crocodile society.
If you think that this is far fetched, consider whether people should be
allowed to raise their children in the religion of their choice. What
if the religion of their choice is not a Christian one? What if it
is Satanism a la Anton LaVey? or Scientology?
If you answer that they can raise their children in the religion of their
choice, then you have concluded that the freedom of religion is more
"good" than traditional standards of "good" as outlined in the North
American society of 1983. If you want to keep people from raising their
kids to be Satanists, then you think that some concept of "good" is
more important than religious freedom. In either case, you have come
closer to understanding your personal definition of "good". What you
must recognise is that not everyone out there agrees with you.
Me, I go for freedom every time ....
I could present a "proof" for freedom as the ultimate good, and all evils
being manisfestations of a lack of freedom. The problem is that it doesnt
provide any solutions, but is merely an elegant theory which i happen to
believe.
Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura