trc@houti.UUCP (06/23/83)
Response to Fred Richards on life as a basis for good vs evil: Yes, I do mean to say that good and evil are nonsense terms unless one includes the value of human life in the equation. It differs from the tree falling in the forest in that an action must affect a human for its results to be considered good or bad, so there will always have to be a human involved. Also, note that there is a real distinction between "bad" and "evil". An event can have bad results whether it is caused by a human or natural events. Evil is the description of a human, or of a human motivation, that causes a bad event. A motivation is evil if it has bad results. A person is evil if that person knows that their motivation is evil, yet continues to embrace it. A subtle form of evil is evading the knowledge that some of one's motivations are evil - one chooses not to consider the evidence (the bad results of one's actions) that indicate an evil motive. The action of evasion has the result of continuing the other evil motivations, and so their bad results. Thus, it is evil. An event, such as a weapon killing all humans, is bad in relation to humans. If we assume an impartial observer, (perhaps a computer that has been programmed to determine when humans are harmed), it would still be able to print out "That bomb was bad for humans. It was caused by someone who intended it to kill all humans. That human was evil." It is not necessary that there to be a human present to make the judgement - the evil is implicit in the results upon the human. (Perhaps I did not state this properly in my previous note.) As to hypothetical other intelligent life forms: supply evidence that such exist, and some factual information as to their nature. Only then can it be determined, with them in mind, that some action is evil. Answering your question more directly, if we assume that this alternate species is basically human "PLUS", then they should have all rights that we should have, and anything that is evil to do to us would be evil to do to them. Advanced intellect or emotional depth would not change the nature of good or evil for them, just as it does not for geniuses or great artists. I think that such an alien would be "human", so far as ethics is concerned. If you wish to consider a race whose value system is not based upon a human-like life, you will have to describe what their basis is. If it is anti-life (as in the SF "Berserker" series), then there can be no compromise between our values and theirs. Tom Craver houti!trc