Xref: utzoo sci.psychology:216 talk.philosophy.misc:995 talk.bizarre:11039
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!actnyc!jsb
From: jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: superego/ego/id : some general questions
Message-ID: <798@actnyc.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 88 23:41:23 GMT
References: <6171@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <14830005@hpisod2.HP.COM>
Reply-To: jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man)
Organization: Diet Software
Lines: 18

Dave Decot writes:
)I use the term "good" to mean "aiding in survival", of whatever, including
)one's body, his family, his groups, his race, his planet, the physical
)universe.  Art and religious beliefs can be said to be "good" for a person
)when they help maintain his mental health, by improving his affinity,
)reality, communication, and understanding, all of which helps him survive.
)The opposite of this definition of "good" would be "causing pain and death".

Survival of one's body, family, groups (newsgroups?), race, etc. may require
opposite actions thus one may have to give up ones body to save a member of
ones family.  "Good" is a value word and thus cannot be derived solely from
facts (else someone with a competing value accepting your definition could
rightly say "why do what's good?".)  Clearly you think survival is a good
thing.  Are there any suicidal readers out there who wish to contest this?
What you post may double as a suicide note.
-- 
		"Just say N2O"
				jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)