Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Premises,Premises,Premises,... (is good logical?)
Message-ID: <210@ubvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 15:19:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubvax.210
Posted: Mon Jun 17 15:19:01 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 00:13:06 EDT
References: <294@ihlpm.UUCP> <1310021@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 23

In article <1310021@acf4.UUCP>, mms1646@acf4.UUCP writes:
> 
> In order to maximize GOOD, we must select that system that is a member
> of the set of possible systems, such that the total good, i.e., the sum
> over all persons in the system of the good for each person, in the system
> is maximal.  Your statement above fails to take into account the fact that
> within a given system, the good for all persons need not be equal.
> 
> 								Mike Sykora

There is a hidden implication in this, perhaps, that there is some kind
of universal good.  Uh, uh.  The set of possible systems could only be
the set of systems possible from this given moment in time and place in
space.  That set is rather limited.

The utilitarian impulse of summing over individuals, as Mike suggests,
is also wasted because it suggests a world which is pragmatically
impossible from this time-space moment.  We inherit standards that place
some individuals higher than others, and these standards cannot be
thrown out as if we could separate ourselves from them.  We can't.

Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw