Re: [edu-eu] FWB: Foss with benefits

[Andrew Lindley]

From: Kernc <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [edu-eu] FWB: Foss with benefits
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 00:44:27 +0100

> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Andrew 'Leny' Lindley <
> address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>>
>> > > > Here is an issue I have with much of what I read today:  The notions
>> of
>> > > > fundamental "rights and wrongs" are used often.  Personally, I don't
>> > > > believe that there are such things at all ... in the universe.   That
>> > > > has
>> > > > nothing to do with software, or religion, or anything except my
>> > > > cosmology.   So FSF philosophy alienates me long before
>> considerations
>> > > > of
>> > > > software ... whether I agree with the goals or not.  That argument is
>> > > > loaded with implicit assumptions that have nothing to do with
>> software.
>> > >
>> > > To draw on Michael J Sandel's 'Justice,' which I recommend to you.  If
>> you
>> > > believe there is no such thing as rights and wrongs (as human truths)
>> do
>> > > you
>> > > propose to cook and eat your own children at some point?
>> >
>> > Simply not believing in apriori, universal right and wrong does not imply
>> > that I would therefore propose such a thing.   People can refrain from
>> such
>> > things on their own, for obvious reasons, without the need to invoke
>> > unprovable philosophical arguments.
>>
>> You needed one iteration more.  You've missed your 'for obvious reasons'
>> implicitly acknowledges a fundamental _human_ judgement of something as
>> wrong does it not?  Therefore within the scope of a human existence it is
>> reasonable to contend there are other fundamental rights and wrongs.
>>
>> I appreciate YMMV, but since you can expect most of us here to believe in
>> fundamental human rights because we're advocating new ones (myself
>> included)
>> you can also expect us not to agree with the contention that there is no
>> such
>> beast.
>>
> 
> Fundamental human judgement of something as wrong? What about just not
> being worth the legal consequences?
> 
> Your human "rights and wrongs" are strongly dependent on the circumstance
> and the underlying tradition and culture of each examined human community.
> Universal, god-given fundamentals are not something agreed on or advocated
> for.

Where's 'Universal, god-given fundamentals' etc come from?  I've said
nothing of the sort.  

The appropriate meaning of fundamental is 'primary [intangible] from
which other things are derived.'  

So earlier Charles has effectively claimed that 'there is no such thing
as 'root' rights and wrongs from which other things can be derived.'
Because he claims there is no a priori proof of them.

But he has then (with provocation) gone on to make a personal
judgement call of right and wrong which has no a priori proof (look up
[necro]canibalism on Wikipedia, it's merely a common taboo) and has
derivates e.g. I don't eat my offspring therefore I won't eat any
relative either.  One of which is to extend it to 'therefore I won't
eat any human.'  

So he has potentially personally decided everybody on the planet has
the undocumented human right not to be eaten by him.  That is the
'Fundamental human judgement [call] of wrong' I am talking about.  I
just hadn't got as far as explaining it this clearly before. It takes
quite some effort to remember school lessons when they were 45 years
ago.

Leny