From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Tue Jan 22 2002 - 00:47:17 MST
David Hill wrote
"Hill's first rule. There is only one rule.
First corollary: He who makes the rules wins.
Second corollary. Never let the other guy make the rules."
[Blunderov]
Thank you for leading me to some reading I might otherwise have missed.
<Armed only with his trusty Britannica Blunderov discovers>
"Normative ethics seeks to set norms or standards ("rules"Bl) of conduct....
A crucial question of normative ethics is whether actions are to be judged
right or wrong solely on the basis of their consequences...
Those(theories) that judge an action according to whether they fall under a
RULE have been referred to as deontological theories...
Theories that judge actions by their consequences have been known as
teleological theories (but has) been replaced to a large extent by the more
straightforward term "consequentialist"...
The simplest form of consequentialism is classic Utilitarianism which holds
that every action should be judged according to whether it's consequences do
more than any alternative action to increase, or if that is impossible, to
limit any unavoidable decrease in - the net balance of pleasure over pain in
the universe. This is often called hedonistic Utilitarianism...
Derek Parfit suggested (that we need) not simply a theory of what we should
all do, but a theory of what motives we should all have."
Getting back to Hill's first rule - I take you to mean:
"There is only one rule; he who makes the rules wins.
Corollary: Never let the other guy make the rules!
Deontologically speaking it seems to me that Hill's first rule is perfectly
sound; the rule Dave Hill has created is fully in accordance with Hill's
first rule - that one should seek to "make the rules".
But is it right?
A rule can be established either by an agreement or by force. The
consequences of Hill's first rule would be that all rules would be created
by force. There would be no agreement at all.
A "consequentialist" would probably take the view that Hill's first rule
would not increase "the net balance of pleasure over pain in the universe"
and is therefore wrong.
Glad to be of assistance.
Blunderov
PS if it is true that Yash ratted on L'Ermit to the military then he is a
very, very bad Yash indeed. The consequences are bad. He changed the rules
by force. He reveals by this action an agenda that he never openly declared
to the forum. He must be a front-runner for the "Intellectual nark of the
year" award. Fie.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT