Re: Geddes's 'Moral Perturbation Theory'

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 10:06:51 MDT

On Jul 1, 2004, at 2:01 AM, Metaqualia wrote:

>>>> You mean something like putting everyone on heroin? Happiness is a
>>> 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.
> Because you are thinking of drugs as having side effects, such as not
> being
> able to function as a person, destroying brain cells, and so forth. I
> said
> "if it had no side effects", as in a perfect mood enhancer, something
> that
> could transform a miserable person into a very happy person without
> needing
> to jump off buildings or hallucinating, which is very probably possible
> (since there are happy people around who don't hallucinate or jump off
> buildings).

No, it is rather because your "morality" at its root is limited to what
"feels good". I find that inherently meaningless.

> You are and have been in the past too dismissive and have a know-it-all
> attitude that is not (nice nor) justified given that you are
> presenting no
> data to back up your assessment.

There is no point in extending this argument with rationalized data
when your fundamental assumption appears immediately empty.

- s

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