Hi Steve, I will have to disagree with your notion of benevolent leaders. My position is to kill all leaders. You want to follow me on that one?
Can you do harm by preventing harm? Prisoners would say yes. And let's not get into the Greater Good. That is just a demagogue's tool for manipulation. Mark On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > [Mark, previously] > > In my opinion the highest quality of such morality is non-interference. > > . > If instead you consider the highest quality of morality being > "Do no harm", then you're off to a better start. Because if someone is > doing no harm, there is no obligation to interfere with them. As such > the non-interference rule is derived from one more basic. > > . > [Mark] > > My point was that it is the phenomenon of leaders and followers > > that create the notion of immorality (or morality)... > > Leaders are to blame for wars and fomenting hate, > > not the general populace. But there would not be leaders > > without followers. > > IMHO you're dealing with the symptoms instead of curing the disease. > Sure there are leaders like Stalin & Mao, but there are also leaders > like Socrates & Gandhi. Substitute "role-model" for leader & you get > a different perspective. The problem lies not in the relationship > between leader & follower or role-model and emulator, but in the values > each of these hold. > > Craig > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
