From: BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson) Date sent: Tue, 25 May 1999 15:34:56 -0500 (EST) To: email@example.com Subject: RE: virus: Cow Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> RE: Ethics is about abstract systems; morality is about fuzzy versions
> of them instantiated in individuals.
> ME: From a systems perspective, this is true. The reverse may also be
> true from the perspective of "technology" (which I am proposing is an
> alternate view to the systems perspective).
> Assume that the *technology* which is represented BY a system is the
> (unified) logic according to which the "abstraction" (or, "the
> mechanical nature which maintains a particular organization of objects")
> might exist so as to produce a product (one representative of the
> technology applied), and might thereby maintain an objective *standard*
> (one pre-supposed by the unified "OBJECTive" whose action institutes
> said technology so as to allow for the production of similar objects).
Try this: Morality is to ethics what technology is to science; particular instantiations of general principles. The major difference is that physical laws are less flexible than social/interpersonal norms. This highlights the difference between "hard" sciences, such as physica, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc. (dealing with the interactions of matter/energy) and "soft" sciences, such as counseling psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, economics, and political science.
> In this way (according to the proposed standard), one might define the
> "abstract nature" as the "ethics" of the proposed system though still
> control for the system's tendency to become "fuzzy" (or to become
> mechanically dis-unified-- ie. without regard for the technological, or
> "moral", standard which singularly defines such a system).
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!: