cbostrum (04/05/83)
'good': That which benefits a sentient being, in the final opinion of that sentient being. 'evil': That which harms a sentient being, in the final opinion of that sentient being. Eric J. Wilner sdcsvax!sdccsu3!ee163cz You must be joking. (You said "semi-serious"?). Which sentient being? You mean "good for X" is "that which benefits X..."? This is obviously not a definition of "good" does not have a parameter on it. "Good" is good and bad for everyone, cutting across individual distinctions. An example of a more sensible theory of good would be: X is Good iff God approves of X. The above proposed theory is just incoherent. It doesnt even pretend to define "good". In fact, since I dont know your opinion, and you dont know mine, a consequence of this definition is that ethical disagreement is **impossible**! For if you say "X is good", meaning "X is good for me" and I say "X is bad" meaning "X is bad for me" we are not contradicting one another. Good and Bad are *not** supposed to be matters of personal taste.
jss (04/10/83)
"Good and Bad are *not* supposed to be matters of personal taste." Ah, there's the rub. They *are*. Sorry about that, but what's "good for me" might very well be "bad for you". judith