TruthMonger's standards...

jf_avon at jf_avon at
Sat Aug 9 15:38:55 PDT 1997

On  9 Aug 97 at 16:02, TruthMonger wrote

>   Life is a crapshoot, and the most we can hope for is to use our
> best judgement to minimize whatever ill effects might occur as 
> the result of haphazard circumstance.

I have to slightly disagree on the quoted sentence, extracted from an 
otherwise super extra excellent post.

IMO, life is not a crapshoot, it simply "is".  Reality Is.  So, you 
just have to deal with it.  

Now, arguing about the non-existence of Good or Bad, you 
interestingly use your own scale of Good and Bad.  So, clearly, there 
*is* some sort of standard.

Only, you seems to hold as a basic premise that the standard can not 
be codified because it doesn't meet the simplicistic criterias that 
you describe.   please don't build a straw man and shoot it down 

The sentence "Well, it works in theory but it doesn't in practice" is 
absolute bullshit and an attempt at invalidating reason.  Which
theoretician with a milligram of self respect would come up with a 
theory that comes in contradiction to the best observation of 
Reality we can do?  

My own rule about morality is the following: any rule that is good 
for the harmonious development and life of the Human Animal is a good 
one.  Anything that has an effect contrary to the first rule is 
"bad".  And there are many things that are neither good or bad also.

Now, good and bad are highly context dependent.  In your example, you 
show a situations where some peoples made context-dependent decisions 
while not fully analysing the context.  To do such analyse requires 
efforts and time, which are not always available.  You then proceed 
to build scenario inquiring more deeply in the context of the 
situation and figure out that the decision *might* have been wrong.

So, clearly, you *do* have some standard underlying your statements.

JFA       "life" is a sexually transmitted terminal condition

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list