Re: virus: Consciousness

Eric Boyd (
Mon, 17 Jun 1996 00:00:34 -0500

Robin Faichney wrote:

> I think "good" and "evil" are only required where one person is
> trying to control the behaviour of another. So, because they
> wouldn't understand the real reason, you tell a child not to do
> something "because it is bad". A useful meme.

I think this definition is a little narrow. Isn't it possible that one
man could do a /bad/ or /evil/ thing and not effect any other person?
Like, say, needless destruction of property. Even if it is your
property, and you effect no-one by polluting it, is that not still

> Among intelligent adults, on the other hand, we can discuss
> what makes some actions desirable and others undesirable,
> in terms of the real issues, and good and bad/evil become
> just synonyms for desirable and undesirable -- they have no
> reality, no meaning, in themselves. Inasmuch as their use
> can be confusing, implying that they do have their own
> meanings, the good/bad/evil memes are undesirable. But I
> don't say "bad"!

Well said. I agree totally. There is no "good" or "bad" essence in
actions of objects. It is the effects of those objects or the ways in
which they are used that make them undesirable or "bad".