From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!ee163cz
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: Morality simplified [somewhat serious]
Article-I.D.: sdccsu3.457
Posted: Mon Apr  4 10:18:07 1983
Received: Tue Apr  5 03:01:53 1983


   Proposed definition of 'good' and 'evil':

'good': That which benefits a sentient being, in the final opinion of
        that sentient being.

'evil': That which harms a sentient being, in the final opinion of
        that sentient being.

   These seem like basically workable definitions, but I think a refinement
is in order: in some cases, 'sentient being' should be replaced by
'conscious entity'; this takes into account drastic personality changes
whereby one 'conscious entity' may be destroyed and another created in
the same body (in the opinion of a deranged person who is terrified by the
prospect of becoming somebody else, this is important).

   Given these definitions (which I dreamed up a couple of days ago in
an attempt to put my personal moral beliefs in writable form; I'm sure
somebody has mentioned essentially the same definitions before), it is
possible to derive (dynamically) a personal guide to conduct, simply by
examining all available information and choosing whatever course of
action appears to involve the least evil.

   There is, of course, nothing new about this, but then there's nothing
new about a lot of things discussed in this group, and I thought I might
as well point out that a perfectly workable guide to morality can be reduced
to a two-line definition, its complement, and a little judgment.

                              Yours for better one-liners,
                              Eric J. Wilner
                              sdcsvax!sdccsu3!ee163cz