Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

[Scott Michel <scottm@cs.ucla.edu>]

In gnu.misc.discuss Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG <thomas@gnu.ai.mit.edu> alleges:
: Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes:

: Kant identified a single categorical imperative as foundational for
: ethics and gave several formulations of it, which he believed were
: logically equivalent.  Three of the most popular formulations are:

: *  Act as if the maxim of your action were to be a universal law of
: nature.

: *  Act as if the maxim of your action were to be a universal moral
: law.  

: *  Never treat a person as a means, unless in that action you treat
: them simultaneously as an end.

: Kant explicitly stated that he believed this principle to be superior
: to and different from the Golden Rule.

Quick! We need a Randian to jump in and set things straight "Why Kant
Is A Really Bad Thing"!

The problem with the above rules is that they are subjective. I doubt
if anyone can give me a concrete def'n what universal laws of nature
and morality are (appealling to my rational side, not my emotional
"But it's just good and the other is evil, dammit!")

The "Golden Rule" is well defined, even in the abstract. It causes one
to reflect as to what the consequences of action are.

The same can't be said of Kant, who couldn't anyway, even in smug
superiority.

Thomas and I have sparred on this in the past. And I doubt that there
will ever be any resolution to the Plato/Hegel/Kant vs.
Aristotle/Aquinas/Rand dichotomy, so long as the P/H/K types claim
that the A/A/R are unfeeling, overly rational, and just plain evil,
dammit!


-scottm
-- 
Scott Michel                           Graduate School:
UCLA Computer Science		          It's Not Just A Job.
PhD Student                               It's An Indenture.

"AND STOP CALLING ME Scooter!" :-)