<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in?</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3020" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText73757 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org on behalf of gts<BR></FONT><FONT size=2>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:39:53 -0500, Jef Allbright <jef@jefallbright.net> <BR>wrote:<BR><BR>> Now, if you'd like a simple, coherent, monotonic, extensible definition <BR>> of "good", consider:<BR>> ********<BR>> Actions are assessed as good to the extent that they are expected to <BR>> promote ourpresent values into the future.<BR>> *******<BR>><BR>><BR>> Nice try, Jef, but that is only a definition what actions some people <BR>> might assess as good, not a definition of good.<BR>><BR>> Nazis considered extermination of certain races "good". They thought such <BR>> exterminations would "promote our present values into the future".<BR>><BR>> I think they were probably wrong.<BR><BR>Gorden, I'll combine my response to this and your rather whiney post complaining about how often I mention "context". </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>Semiosis is not a new idea, but it seems to be one you're having trouble with. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>The point that you repeatedly fail to grasp is that all meaning, including "good", is context-dependent. For some people, certain acts of genocide were good. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, good is in the mind of he who assesses it to be so. If I were to shoot at someone and my bullet hits the target, I consider that good. But that doesn't imply that it was a moral act, because "moral" means assessed as "good" over a wide scope.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>It's ironic that you're confusing "good" with "right" or "moral", since I highlighted the difference in the line immediately following that which you so flippantly deride. Apparently you didn't get it, so you ignored it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>It's the same problem you're having with probability, thinking that you can expect a fully objective answer from a less than objective question. You toss around famous names of people and elegant principles of thought with no indication that you grasp or appreciate the profound beauty of these statements of regularity observable in our interactions with "reality". It's sad, and as many point out, rather a waste of time. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>- Jef</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>