From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public From: thomas@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/06/30 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 253661377 References: <33B014E3.3343@no.such.com> <5oqp9s$7vj$1@news.nyu.edu> Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-06-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ronald Cole writes: > If that philosopy is the "Golden Rule" (Kantian) .... Kant did not advocate the Golden Rule. (He accepted it, but thought it was of quite limited usefulness.) The Golden Rule says "do to others what you would have them do to you." But there are several logical problems in making this foundational for ethics. 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. Thomas