Terry L Parker wrote: The definition
> PUBLIC morality: that which is right/wrong for all persons. Doesn't work. See Machiavelli /The Prince/ http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm and /Discourses/ http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm Almost nothing except perhaps survival is right for all persons, and each person survives at different timespans, so can conflict when they don't overlap. A better definition is one that recognizes that what is "good" for each person has to be balanced against one another, because they do conflict. It becomes a matter of distributive justice, deciding conflicts justly and giving each person his due. Philosophers have sought formulas: Utilitarian v 1.0 (Bentham, Mill): "The greatest good for the greatest number." Utilitarian v. 2.0 (Madison, U.S. Founders): "The greatest good that everyone can attain through his own efforts that does not infringe on the rights of others, using rules that can endure for long ages." Utilitarian v 3.0 (modern public choice): "The greatest good that each organized faction can win for itself by influencing the political process and negotiating with other factions." Readers are invited to try to develop other formulas. -- Jon ---------------------------------------------------------------- Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
