So, to come back to the initial question: when it comes to protecting one's 'self' though harming others, what unit of geographic area makes such protection, at any cost, presumably, legitimate?
You see the problem. If this isn't specified and then applied universally, then we are left with the situation where mere greed and self-seeking are morally legitimate. Lawry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 6:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Re: defining groups > Well, OK, "geographic area". So how do you define a "geographic area"? > How large? How bounded? A federalist nation-state perhaps? Depending on personal preferences (or "format" ;-) ), one can emphasize the communal, cantonal or national level for "activity" (of course the global level too, but here the formal means are rather limited due to a lack of global state structures). Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
