From: fxpcd@batman.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Peter Dolan)
Subject: Re: Good and Evil
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:14:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.150543.3846@beaver.cs.washington.edu>  
simonson@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Simonson) writes:
>      Article <1992Oct1.024410.5904@raven.alaska.edu> quotes Peter Dolan:
> 

 Lots of stuff deleted, some of which I wrote, and some of which Kevin  
wrote

> =                        With this in mind I see several possiblities:
> =One:  Only the antecedants determine the goodness, or evilness of an  
act.
> =Two:  The antecedants plus the effects of an act determine the morality
> =(I'm getting tired of writing goodness and evilness) of an act
> =Three:  I'm missing some other possibility.
> =        Possibility one is interesting.  In this case, most acts, are
> =simultaneously good and evil, coming from both good and evil sources.
> 
>      This sounds like the "morality" (degree of goodness/badness?) of a
> "source" of an action is being used to determine the "morality" of the  
ac-
> tion itself.  How do we determine the morality of the source?
> 
> =        Possibility two is even more interesting.  If the goodness and
> =evilness also depends upon the effects of an act then we won't know if  
an
> =act was good or evil until the end of the universe.
> 
>      I'm not sure that this follows.
> 
>      Consider the isomorphism isomorphism with good for one-to-one  
mapping
> and natural numbers to time.  If the question is then, is there a  
one-to-
> one mapping between the even numbers and the natural numbers, a similar
> analysis would say that we can't know until we've counted to the end of
> the natural numbers.
> 
>                                      ---Kevin
Actually, I don't see how what I was saying interferes with the  
inductability of infinite sets.  In your example the following things are  
assumed:  A set of natural numbers, a set of even numbers, and a rule for  
mapping the one onto the other.  I'm not talking about a rule that maps  
from good to an act, or from evil to an act.  Think of it more in terms of  
a recursive function:  The value the recursive function returns to the  
calling program, is never known until it returns that value.  If you  
freeze the process for an instance, you only have the value of that  
instance, and not the value that will be returned.  Again, because we're  
dealing with both antecedant, and effect it gets a little tricky.   
Assuming this structure to be in place (and there're alot of arguments we  
can make without it being so) the morality of an act I make is dependant  
upon what led up to it (could we call this intention) and what follows  
from it (could we call this consequence) The words I've picked have a  
couple of connotations that aren't exactly what I mean to convey, but I  
think they're closer than anything else I'll find.  To further complicate  
things I'm going to stick this in a framework.  We have the BIG G.  This  
is the guy who's watching all of this from outside of space-time.   
Finally, I realize the missing piece from which I've been constructing my  
arguments.  I'm going to call it moral inertia:  The morality of an act  
and its consequences will remain the same until acted upon by an outside  
force.  This is basically just the argument that the morality depends upon  
only its antecedants which is fine, an act that comes from the source of  
good is good (by definition), and an act that comes from the source of  
evil is evil(by definition)  As long as these two never intersect there's  
no problem, but if they come in conflict, the conflict has both a good and  
an evil content in it, and to resolve this difficulty, I bring in that  
morality is based upon the consequences of the act as well (this is just  
for discussion... of course it's quite possible that an act is good and  
evil, and this is an interesting tie into subjectivity, but I digress) If  
this is the case, then you don't know whether an act was good or evil  
until you see whether its effects are good or evil, but you don't know the  
morality of these effects until you find the morality of their effects,  
and on and on.  Assuming the universe ends, we eventually reach a final  
effect, where, if we know the morality of this act we then know the  
morality of all previous acts.  But, you say, (I can hear you) will not  
this act contain good and evil as well, and thus nothing will be resolved,  
and the universe is doomed or blessed (depending upon your views) to a  
dichotomy of good and evil in every act, with no morality over all?  The  
answer would be yes if the source of good and evil were unable to continue  
acting or good and evil in an act couldn't interfere with each other.   
Since we've sort of been assuming that the second one isn't possible, then  
the only way out of this is if more good and evil keep getting put into  
the system.  Furthermore, the input of this morality has to occur with a  
GOOD or an EVIL act within this universe (ie, the source of good or evil  
interfere), but though the act would remain good or evil for as long as  
the entity was interfering (and I'm also assuming that this entity is not  
as far removed from the time scale as our BIG G observer is) when the  
interference is stopped, the act is no longer pure good or pure evil,  
because the effects of the act have mingled with the rest of the universe  
and have tainted its source.  So, the only way to truly make every act in  
the universe good or evil, is to have the source interfere at the very end  
(and only one source at that right?)  Now, under what circumstances can  
these sources interfere?  Do they need a conscious conduit?  Who knows.  I  
just wanted to construct a particular model of the universe.  Blow as many  
holes in it as you can, and I'll try to fix 'em when we've got a  
consistant model.  We'll build another.  (Philosophical Legos)