Re: Objectivity [was Re: Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]
"Nadav Har'El" <nyh-TS7m/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.culture.hackers.israel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]": > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously > done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the > productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or > prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the > destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil" > == "bad". This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely broken to me... Is rape filling your own "biological needs" (and therefore good) or harming someone else (and therefore bad)? What about stealing food (which fills your own biological needs, and does not "biologically" harm the store you stole from)? If Gingis Khan's campaign is bad in this definition (he harmed others more than he benefited himself), what about Churchill's and Roosvelt's campaign in WWII - after all they didn't fill their biological needs, and millions of Germans lost theirs? -- Nadav Har'El | Friday, Mar 30 2007, 11 Nisan 5767 nyh-TS7m/[email protected] |----------------------------------------- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |How's he gonna read that magazine rolled http://nadav.harel.org.il |up like that? What the ... - a fly.