From: jasonjoachim (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 08:16:03 MST
> So I agree with the general notion that there are
> more ways of a
> FAI being present with and allowing suffering than
> can be easily
> be disposed of.
> - samantha
Do you reject the idea that one person’s interests can
ever be more important than another’s? Why? Do you
think you know the best reason to do so?
Does it matter if someone does so for a reason other
than the best reason? Do you understand the
“disconnect” that can happen in such a case?
By what possible mechanism would you determine another
individual’s interests? How would you like this to be
determined in your case? And might the ideal method of
conclusion vary between individuals then?
So the question is, "Why would active benevolence
allow for involuntary suffering?" That's sure not an
interest of mine.
Benevolence isn't supposed to have unintended
consequences. And the whole ideal of “rejecting the
idea that one person’s interests can ever be more
important than another’s” is that each person’s
"interests" are theirs alone. That’s what human
benevolence is. I can’t wish any other definition of
benevolence on anyone. Do you want a world where any
mind can? Why would you?
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 18 2013 - 04:00:34 MDT