Re: virus: Good will and teleonomy

Nathaniel Hall (
Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:46:17 -0600

KMO wrote:
> Nate wrote:
> "Good will is not necessarily the way to the good. If your action while
> good intentioned is based on bad information it leads to bad results.
> The good comes about from acting on good information and good will. "
> Only if you assume that the good of an act is to be found in its
> consequences.

Why is that a bad assumtion? How else could one judge if something is
good in the first place?

You may assume this, but your assumption constitutes no
> sweeping victory for consequentialist ethics.
I'm suprised this is even an issue of contention. It seems self evident
to me.

> Nate also wrote:
There are apparently two Nates out there. Just call me The Nateman to
avoid some confusion
> "Hegel was a favorite of the communists. He provided the poisoned water
> from which they choose to drink."
> Darwin was a favorite of eugenicists, laize faire capitalists, and
> CoVers. That doesn't mean that Darwin was affiliated with or
> sympathetic to any of those causes.
I don't mean to imply that Hegel would be happy with the communists. I
imply the communists seem to have been quite happy with Hegal.

The Nateman