[FoRK] Meaning Re: Worth

[Corinna Schultz]

On these questions, I don't have well-developed thoughts. I could
throw out a few ideas, but I'm not sure I could argue for anything
very strongly.

On Nov 30, 2007 11:07 AM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar
<drernie at radicalcentrism.org> wrote:
> Let me ask a follow-up question:  is there any robust ("scientific"?)
> way to determine which issues truly are relevant to the "stability of
> civilization"?

I think not, because society (any society) is the result of
evolutionary forces.  And evolution is ongoing.


> In other words, are _all_ appeals to "the good of society" necessarily
> false, or are some valid and thus justify coercion (e.g., "Thou shalt
> not murder").  Or, for that matter, are some appeals to "the good of
> society" valid but still not justified?

This reminds me of Heidigger (sp?), who I disagree with, but can't
articulate why, not really :)  (roughly, from dusty memory, "you are
morally bound to obey your society's dictates")


> Or, are all such questions purely subjective, and thus "the good of
> society" is really only determined by whomever happens to be in power
> over society?

The society at large determines what is good, because you see the
effects on it. (You don't know if a mutation is beneficial until the
organism dies or reproduces successfully.) Yes, it's a tautology, the
way "survival of the fittest" is a tautology...


-Corinna