Received: from spf3.us4.outblaze.com (spf3.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.25]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA98faQc014616 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:41:36 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf3.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE2353613 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:41:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRRhg-0001l8-AB for migo@homemail.com; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 03:50:16 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CRRgg-0001l2-Gk for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 03:49:14 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CRRgf-0001kp-8S for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 03:49:13 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRRgf-0001km-0z for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 03:49:13 -0500 Received: from [130.158.98.109] (helo=tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CRRXn-0002H5-2Q for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 03:40:03 -0500 Received: from steve by tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CRRXe-0004Ld-00; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:39:54 +0900 To: Thomas Lord Subject: Re: [OT] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: community spirit References: <200411010336.iA13af6p023128@xl2.seyza.com> <20041101141701.GB9161@puritan.pcp.ath.cx> <87wtx51w70.fsf@beeblebrox.rfc1149.net> <20041101144826.GD9161@puritan.pcp.ath.cx> <41867B20.1020608@melon.dk> <2982EA60-2C38-11D9-8C6F-000393CFE6B8@spy.net> <4186917E.3030209@melon.dk> <20041101232959.GA25080@hezmatt.org> <87ekjcswdn.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <418765A9.2040206@diku.dk> <878y9kpfcm.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200411022006.iA2K6Q1n036262@xl2.seyza.com> <87y8hinbq1.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200411041938.iA4Jc4UX055425@xl2.seyza.com> <87lldfe8la.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200411082054.iA8Ks4ap083122@xl2.seyza.com> Organization: The XEmacs Project From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:39:54 +0900 In-Reply-To: <200411082054.iA8Ks4ap083122@xl2.seyza.com> (Thomas Lord's message of "Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:54:04 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: <87vfcf76w5.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.5 (chayote, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org, stephen@xemacs.org X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Status: RO Content-Length: 2815 Lines: 69 >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord writes: >> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Thomas> Where does that leave such willfully ignorant execs in my Thomas> moral calculus? >> Well, since you ask: it should leave them _outside_ of the >> _moral_ calculus. Evaluating others is not moral behavior: >> moral evaluations are first person, "I/we should/should not do >> ...". Of course it is often necessary to morally evaluate >> others' _behavior_, in order to determine whether "you and me" >> can become "we" in the moral calculus. Thomas> Are you saying: Thomas> Moral judgement are applicable to actions, behavior, Thomas> and attitudes -- not to individual people. Thus, you are Thomas> wrong to place ignorant execs within your moral calculus. I wouldn't phrase it that way. In particular, I'd probably delete both "attitudes" from the things to be judged and surely "ignorant" from the description of execs. Besides the matter of principle ("don't judge people"), I really rather doubt that they are ignorant; they are simply refusing to behave in accordance with what you believe are the moral imperatives of the situation. Thomas> A subtle but worthwhile improvement. In terms of the Thomas> "takeaway" from this thread that an exec might make? Thomas> Well, that improvement might save them a few minutes worth Thomas> of a therapy session, but that's about it. That I have to disagree with. The takeaway is that it's still possible to talk to you as long as it's behavior that's in question. They could have misassessed either their goals (which in principle include both self-interest and more altruistic motivations, of course that varies by person), or the connection between behavior and goal. They may learn something useful from you if you tell them their behavior is bad. Thomas> But are you also saying: Thomas> Moral judgements are important only for evaluating the Thomas> possibility of an alliance. ("whether ``you and me'' can Thomas> become ``we''.) "Alliance" is not the point of "we"; it is certainly possible (for me, anyway) to ally with someone whose moral stance is disagreeable, for a moral purpose. "We" is simply the domain of moral judgement. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/