Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:28:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Roberts [alexander.roberts@kcl.ac.uk]
Subject: Re: [PLANESCAPE] - [P] Moral system

AN AXIOMATIC SYSTEM TO BE CALLED 'GOOD'

Observation 1: Sentient beings exist. We are all specimens of such.

Observation 2: We do not exist in isolation, but alongside one another.

Axiom of Good: All such sentient beings are to be considered to have free will, (unless insane, in which case the failing of free will devolves responsibility on others) and that will be our basic measure. All sentient beings are of equal (and high) value because of this property of free will which is common to all able to practice this system.

Corollary 1: Rights and responsibilities come in pairs. For every thing you wish to do, you must provide the opportunity to those around you to do so as well. Otherwise, you are impairing others as an function of your free will, not theirs.

Observation 3: People should have a right to compete. This is not incompatible with Corollary 1, but introduces a concept of fair play.

Corollary 2: Murder (the termination of a sentient being without their consent by and for the inhibition of their free will by the freely-willed actions of another such being, without provocation or prior cause) is wrong, and blame rests on the murderer. This is to be regarded the principle crime, and its wrongness derives from its immediate denial of equal rights to the victim.

Observation 4: This is all pretty intuitive stuff.

Corollary 3; The Teamwork Principle: As individuals may not always be able to provide the ability to others to do what they wish to do, we introduce the teamwork principle. Individuals may, if they wish, act in groups, such as families, councils and governments, to provide facilities or to ask for rights. This is to be understood as an exercise of mutual free will to the same ends.

Theorem 1; The Justice Theorem: A group, as discussed above, may decide that the for one individual to relive an unwilling victim within the group of any right normally available to a member of that group is a crime, and that for certain rights being removed, the criminal may be said to relinquish such rights personally. This also sets the maximum punishment that may be exacted for a crime. This is described as a theorem because although systems exist fulfilling the foregoing statements and practising this one, I cannot demonstrate a direct connection. A proof would be appreciated, and if there isn't one, this will have to become the Axiom of Justice instead. If it is axiomatic, it may not belong to the 'Good' system. Comments appreciated.

AN AXIOMATIC SYSTEM TO BE CALLED 'EVIL'

Observation 1: I exist. Only my intelligence and consciousness are evident to me.

Observation 2: I am vulnerable, firstly to impairment and ultimately to destruction, by the actions of others and the functions of nature.

Axiom of Evil: I will always consider myself to be of primary importance. If I should cease to exist, all else is futile. Therefore I shall promote my own ends at the expense of others.

Corollary 1: I can do what I like to others.

Corollary 2; The Alliance Rule: If I don't need to impair another to promote my ends, perhaps by getting them to aid me, or even by aiding them, I can further myself. Caution required.

Corollary 3: The only crime that exists is that another should offend or injure me. This shall be punished to the full extent of my abilities.

OBSERVATIONS ON GOOD AND EVIL

The Axiom of Justice is tentative, and the author wishes to point out that it's probably not necessary to Good, although it doesn't exclude it either. Evil does exclude the correct execution of 'Justice' because Evil is not described in the rights of more than one person.

Good and Evil are mutually exclusive as systems, but a person may change which they practice freely.

Good and Evil are mutually opposed.

Good and Evil are not a complete moral set. There are other views, possibly opposed to, or allied with, one, both or neither of the two foregoing systems. Unless someone produces a system mutually exclusive to evil that also opposes good, or vice versa, any such system described earlier in this passage shall be called neutrality.

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:55:35 -0500
From: Samuel Weiss [SWeissBB@worldnet.att.net]
Subject: Re: [PLANESCAPE] - [P] Moral system

Concerning your system Alex. First off, very good work. But down to more specifics.

Corollary 1. Right and Responsibilities. To me, this is what most people ignore when going about their business. Everyone harps about their rights, while completely ignoring the fact that others have the same rights as well. My biggest complaint about the U.S. Constitiution, no Bill of Responsbilities to go with the Bill of Rights. Of course, that moves over into politics, but to me is a much better explanation of the source of problems over here.

Theorem 1. The Justice Theorem. regrettably this will have to be just an axiom as, 1. Eye for an Eye is going way out of style. 2. Some crimes can not be punished to the same level. While raping a rapist might be equitable if the victim is an adult, the massive loss of innocence involved when a child is the victim calls for a much greater punishment (and by that, I do mean hanging is too good for them. such types deserve a slow, agonizing death).

Also on this point. A concept that has drifted out of style in our modern times but would bear reintroduction. You touch on it, but I think it needs some expanding. "Outlaw" One who is outside the law. Way back in days of yore, those who committed crimes against the society, were "outlawed" put outside the law. They felt they did not have to live by the rules, so the protections of the rules were withdrawn from them. You could not commit a crime against an outlaw because he did not recognize that such things were real. If you killed him, well he did not think it was murder for him to kill some one, so obviously it would not be murder for someone to kill him.