Re: [OT] Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: community spirit

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <address@hidden> writes:

    >> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>

    Thomas> Where does that leave such willfully ignorant execs in my
    Thomas> moral calculus?

    >> Well, since you ask: it should leave them _outside_ of the
    >> _moral_ calculus.  Evaluating others is not moral behavior:
    >> moral evaluations are first person, "I/we should/should not do
    >> ...".  Of course it is often necessary to morally evaluate
    >> others' _behavior_, in order to determine whether "you and me"
    >> can become "we" in the moral calculus.

    Thomas> Are you saying:

    Thomas>     Moral judgement are applicable to actions, behavior,
    Thomas> and attitudes -- not to individual people.  Thus, you are
    Thomas> wrong to place ignorant execs within your moral calculus.

I wouldn't phrase it that way.  In particular, I'd probably delete
both "attitudes" from the things to be judged and surely "ignorant"
from the description of execs.

Besides the matter of principle ("don't judge people"), I really
rather doubt that they are ignorant; they are simply refusing to
behave in accordance with what you believe are the moral imperatives
of the situation.

    Thomas> A subtle but worthwhile improvement.  In terms of the
    Thomas> "takeaway" from this thread that an exec might make?
    Thomas> Well, that improvement might save them a few minutes worth
    Thomas> of a therapy session, but that's about it.

That I have to disagree with.  The takeaway is that it's still
possible to talk to you as long as it's behavior that's in question.
They could have misassessed either their goals (which in principle
include both self-interest and more altruistic motivations, of course
that varies by person), or the connection between behavior and goal.
They may learn something useful from you if you tell them their
behavior is bad.

    Thomas> But are you also saying:

    Thomas>     Moral judgements are important only for evaluating the
    Thomas> possibility of an alliance.  ("whether ``you and me'' can
    Thomas> become ``we''.)

"Alliance" is not the point of "we"; it is certainly possible (for me,
anyway) to ally with someone whose moral stance is disagreeable, for a
moral purpose.

"We" is simply the domain of moral judgement.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.