Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsstat.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: feeding crocodile worshippers to the crocs! Message-ID: <773@utcsstat.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Jul-83 23:24:10 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsstat.773 Posted: Sat Jul 9 23:24:10 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Jul-83 09:32:36 EDT Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada Lines: 55 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