True. There are merely a few core principles — really, just kinda one
concept and derivations of it. This is my understanding if it. And it seems
this must be so, because of #3. All else is then either a violation, or is
opinion at an individual level.

And, individual opinion which isn't a contradiction is fine, unless
attempts are made to enforce those opinions on others, vs. persuade
logically. Right? So the core principles must be the only ones we CAN all
live by.

I find it less confusing to consider the whole of humanity as one
macro-organism. These things which we can call "bad" are things which would
be called autoimmune diseases or cancers. Good things either do not permit
the spread of disease, or reverse its progress in some way.

The internet, in my view, was the evolutionary development that might best
be compared to the way vascular and nervous systems, and therefore immune
function and other inter-cellular communication, exist in mammals and
vertebrates, vs. the sort of blood "bath" of invertebrate organisms.

In this way we get a unified macro-organism and therefore things which
either are or aren't compatible with its continued existence. It's a broad
summary of my work and writings on this, but hopefully it made some sense.

—J
On Aug 24, 2014 10:22 AM, "Amir Taaki" <genjix@???> wrote:

> but humans are not rational, and while there are better ethics, there is
> no one ethic we can live by. all have different trade-offs. i would not
> push the fat man to divert the train. many people would.
>
> On 24/08/14 16:13, Justus Ranvier wrote:
> > On 08/24/2014 01:38 PM, Julia Tourianski wrote:
> >> you can't compare the objective reality of gravity to human interaction
> and
> >> questions like right and wrong.
> >
> > If by that you mean that ethics are subjective, then I disagree in the
> > strongest possible terms.
> >
> > https://freedomainradio.com/free/#upb
> >
> > Quick summary:
> >
> > 1. Ethical assertions are one way people try to influence the behavior
> > of other people.
> >
> > 2. Ethical statements differ from other ways of persuasion because
> > rather than appealing to personal preference they implicitly claim to
> > derive their validity from universal principals.
> >
> > 3. We can test ethical statements by identifying the universal principle
> > they represent. If the principle can not be applied universally or is
> > logically contradictory, then it's false.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>