Re: Geddes's 'Moral Perturbation Theory'

From: Metaqualia (
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 03:13:13 MDT

> > and what is wrong with that if it had no side effects? Better to be
> > wretched
> > and in anguish, that is natural?
> This is all the proof I require that your qualia based system is
> bankrupt.

and shall I add, the above was not a mathematical consequence of my theory
but more like a personal judgment on the moral value of a certain state
viewed under the light of qualia morality principles. A real analysis of the
problem consistent with the (few) principles of qualia morality would
require more data!

Just because I am the guy who talks about an objective morality based on
qualia it doesn't mean that everything I say needs to add to or detract from
the credibility of qualia morality. If I pick my nose will my theory go
bankrupt? Just take ideas for what they are someone out there spits them out
some will be good some not so good the point is that qualia are very very
important and that negative ones are bad, I don't care too much for anyone
accepting any further corollary.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT