ee163cz (04/09/83)
Harumph! I think what I meant by the title was that the *basis* for
(a form of) morality could be stated simply. The definitions were there
partly because those terms get bandied about a lot and I thought those
definitions acceptable, and partly because, as usual, I violated my Great
Rule of Posting Seriousish Articles and didn't let it age a couple of
days before posting it. At least it stirred up some debate.
There is no point looking for and/or demanding any metaphysical significance
in those definitions. They mean three things:
(1) It is 'wrong' (whatever that means) to harm sentient beings, and
'right' to aid them.
(2) I'm probably in a better position to judge what has been of benefit
to me than you are.
(3) The value of an action cannot be entirely known until all its
consequences have finished happening.
The third point should be obvious to anyone who knows he isn't prescient.
The second is a personal attitude. I also apply it to others: I don't
pretend to know better than anyone else what is good for him.
The first is a blatant assertion.
Use of this sort of definition allows debates on morality to be carried
on without worrying about the undecidable question of God's Will (I consider
any mortal who purports to know God's will to be either a fool or a knave).
In a few situations, my rules give reasonably unambiguous results: there may
be a certainty of harm with no benefit, or a certainty of benefit with
little chance of harm. In general, however, significant actions will
involve benefit to one individual or group and harm to another; in these
cases, it is necessary to make assumptions (preferably reasonable ones,
based on any available experience) as to the final consequences of an
action (or inaction) and what others will consider to be benefit/harm,
and to exercise individual or collective judgment.
Obviously, this *does* get complicated in many cases, but the complication
lies in estimating how an action will affect oneself and others, and in
coming to some acceptable (to one's conscience/morality daemon/whatever)
compromise, and NOT in trying to determine indirectly the will of a deity
whose very existence is unprovable.
To the searchers after metaphysical meaning, I address the following
definition:
'Truth': That which is non-Zero.
Interpretations should NOT be posted to net.lang.c.
-- Gumby the Meddler
(Eric J. Wilner, sdcsvax!sdccsu3!ee163cz)randals (04/11/83)
~~~ beginning of quote ~~~
To the searchers after metaphysical meaning, I address the following
definition:
'Truth': That which is non-Zero.
-- Gumby the Meddler
(Eric J. Wilner, sdcsvax!sdccsu3!ee163cz)
~~~ end of quote ~~~
Interesting. Where did you get that? Here's what I have as a followup
(no explanation or reason):
Truth: (1) That which is NOTHING. (2) That which is EVERYTHING.
Reality: (1) That which is a lie (not TRUTH, see truth).
(2) That which is SOME-THING (not NOTHING, not EVERYTHING).
Everything that I just said is a lie. There is only one truth, and
there are many truths. I am serious, and I am not. Everything I say
is significant, except when it's not.
As a followup to my followup (and to answer some other questions)
a few more quick definitions:
God: see TRUTH.
Mind: see REALITY.
Self: see GOD.
Randal L. ("everything/nothing, manifesting Self in Mind") Schwartz
Tektronix Engineering Computing Systems (the UNIX folks)
Wilsonville, Oregon, USA
UUCP: ...!XXX!teklabs!tekecs!randals (ignore return address)
(where XXX is one of: aat cbosg chico decvax harpo ihnss
lbl-unix ogcvax pur-ee reed ssc-vax ucbvax zehntel)
CSNET: tekecs!randals @ tektronix
ARPA: tekecs!randals.tektronix @ rand-relay