On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:50:00PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > On 29 Mar 2003 11:24:01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:35:02AM +0000, Tim Phipps wrote: > > > > > I would be OK with you adding this to COPYING: > > > > > > === > > > Before using this software, please read the ETHICAL_LICENSE file that > > > comes with the fvwm distribution. > > > === > > > > In other words, I should soften the wording until it can be safely > > ignored without the risk of having a slightly bad conscience? > > Sorry, I can not comply to this. The whole idea of an opt-in > > ethical use statement is a bad joke. > > If you put it in README and not COPYING, it will not sound as a bad joke.
The whole idea of opt-in ethics is ridiculous. I don't see why it would make any difference. > > > Not me I'm afraid, I'm British and I agree with the war against > > > the Iraqi dictatorship. > > > > I do not understand this. In how far does being British, German, > > American, Chinese or Martian affect ethics? > > If this does not affect ethics, how can you explain that most of the > people choose (agree to) the position of their countries? After all > these people elected their politicians or are forced by their dictator. In many so-called democratic countries, the media mostly generate the public opinion. This is especially bad in countries where they are mostly controlled by the government. People with different opinions are often discriminated - you can see this both, in America and in Germany. > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 03:38:34AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > > > > > > I don't like to disappoint you, Dominik, but I don't agree too. > > > I can't see myself agreeing with a license that discriminates people > > > based on their occupation, ethics or similar. > > > > > > GNU GPL means free for everyone forever. No exceptions. Personally I am > > > not a god to decide who is meritorious to use my software and who is not. > > > > > > > > * supporting, planning, preparing or executing wars and other > > > > > military actions. > > > > > > > > I see you left out terrorist acts. > > > > > > One more thing is left out: using chemical, biological and nuclear > > > weapons ... [cut political opinions] > > > > How would you qualify this if not as a military action or an act > > of terrorism? Now, if I would start discriminating between types > > of actions or weapons the statement would really become political. > > Killing millions with nuclear weapons is equally unethical as > > putting a knife in the back of a mass murderer. > > I can't agree. This may be true by your ethics, not by my ethics. > (Read: by your ego, not by my ego.) > > You may only afford to be a humanitarian when you are not directly > involved in a conflict. When you are involved, you should choose sides. That's the one big lie I always hear from people who do not even want to consider if what they are supporting might be wrong. At least I can afford to be a humanitarian, regardless of what happens - as you see: I am attacked from all sides right now. > > > To continue, think also about wars against the drug business and > > > other mafias. What is more ethical, to kill several drug > > > traffickers in a skirmish or to let them to break thousands of > > > people? It's clear to me. > > > > Yes, for me too. Both is utterly unethical. A human life is a > > human life is a human life. > > What is a human life? The god's creature, shrine? I am not religious, so > this is not my ethics. Does the animal life is as important as the human > life? If it is as important, you should fight against killing locusts, > midges, cockroach and dosens of others. If it is less important, it is a > human despotism. Since I believe that the basis of all ethical beliefs is > egoism, I have no problem to state that a human life is more important. I am not religious either. The only 'definition' of morality I have ever seen that I can agree with (although nobody can justify it) is Kant's categorical imperative: Act only according to maxims of which you can want that they become a common law. All other attempts of definition i can think of eventually run down to treating some people differently than others. Regarding the "human despotism": I acknowledge there are two fundamental aspects of human existence. The first is the human being as a product of evolution, as an animal among others. As far as I know, animals are not capable of considering ethical questions. In so far it makes little sense to talk about ethics in this sphere. The second is the human as a thinking being who has an at least partially free will (if not, we can as well stop talking now). In this sphere, it does not make much sense to think about ethics in other than human matters. But then, both spheres overlap in many areas, which makes talking about ethics immensely difficult. > Although I would egoistically fight for my own life and the life of my > family, I don't see my life as something holy by itself. I believe in > evolution. If I die, it is ok as long as the humanity in the whole > prospers. Similary about the lives of others. Thinking otherwise is > caprisious by my ethics. > > > > Face it. Ethics, politics, religion always mean ego, nothing more than > > > this, everyone chooses what is better for his own safety or for the > > > safety of his family, his country, his god, whatever. Nothing special to > > > be prood of. > > > > > > There is no absolute human ethics. Unfortunately. > > > > But that does not mean that ethics are a private decision. Quite > > the opposite, if you accept that people choose ethics too their > > liking, you must accept too if terrorists who kill people do it > > because they see it as their ethical duty to do so. > > I fully realize a terrorist has his own ethics. Since our ethics are > quite opposite (he wants to kill me in name of his gods), I prefer to > fight him and kill him to live myself. Does this not run down to: whoever is stronger should kill his opponent before the opponent kills him? No, I believe that it is vital to not respond to a threat in kind. To prevent falling back into barbarity we have to accept the same verdict that you are deliver upon others. Just consider this for a minute: If through some unforeseen events the 'western' democracies became more or less irrelevant countries, and the Arabian peoples came to control the world. Wouldn't we (the citizens of the western democracies) all have to fear for our lives, because we humiliated the Arabic peoples for decades, claiming our way of life is inherently better than theirs? That may be a purely hypothetical situation, but isn't that the whole idea of ethics: do *not* do everything you *can* do without having to fear the consequences, but acknowledge certain rules to help maintaining a certain level of order. Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
