Re: virus: Consciousness

Eric Boyd (
Tue, 18 Jun 1996 00:33:25 -0500

Robin Faichney wrote:

> 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?

Obviously, I wasn't very clear last time. I agree with your position on
good and bad as being "undesirable" words in that they imply essences.
I was just pointing out that desirable and undesirable do not have to be
limited to just the effects on _other_people_, as you orginally said.
Destroying property, even if it effects no one is still undesirable.

> 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!)

I don't know... seems to me that saying "because I say so" implies that
you beleive in "might makes right", i.e. that you can impose your will
on others just because you hold a position of authority over them.
Would it not be better to perpetuate the illusion of essences, at least
until your children reach the "age of reason", when you could begin
explaining to them about how it is?

Looking back, I think I'll have to think more about this. Is there a
third choice in raising children? hmmm

Possibly one doesn't have to wait for the age of reason. But then
again, how to explain a relative moral system to a five year old without
invoking the might makes right deal?. hmmm. There has got to be a way
out. I just can't see it