Re: virus: Consciousness

Robin Faichney (
Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:17:00 +0100

Eric Boyd wrote:
>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

I don't know. Or rather: I don't believe the question means
anything. Unless it means, are the overall effects of that action
desirable or undesirable? But if it does mean that, why can't
we discuss in these terms, rather than asking is it right or
wrong, which implies some objective quality?

>> Among intelligent adults, on the other hand, we can discuss
>> what makes some actions desirable and others undesirable,
>> in terms of the real issues...
>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".

But doesn't that contradict what you said above??

PS Nate said offline that with kids he used "because I say so"
rather than "because it's bad". I tend to agree that his way is
probably better, and it's certainly more honest. (Hope Nate
doesn't mind me going public with this!)