| Re: If you wish to be happy |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: kevirwinkevirwin Date: Jun 18, 2008 19:20
On Jun 18, 6:41Â pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 18, 6:53Â am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:
>>> "But all who are not lunatics are agreed about certain things: That it is
>> better to be alive than dead, better to be adequatly fed than starved,
>> better to be free than a slave. Many people desire these things only for
>> themselves and their friends; they are quite content that their enemies
>> should suffer. These people can be refuted by science: Mankind has become
>> so much one family that we cannot insure our own prosperity except by
>> insuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you
>> must resign to seeing others also happy."
>
>> Bertrand Russel: The Science to Save Us from Science
>
> Pretty good argument but who decides what suffuring and prosperity is,
> I mean how much of it? What is the situation that is just getting
> ready to become suffering, is it the lowest possible prosperity and
> what should be the allowable differentiation between classes of
> properity once the defined suffuring is eliminated?
The first issue to resolve is the notion that "we should all care
about each other". After that, it's all the mechanics to make it work
(such as, the issues you address)...
again, not to beat a dead horse, the biggest problem facing humanity
in any philosophically crisis is this: the entities used to implement
any solution are, unfortunately, human beings…
just a personal observation,
K e v
Btw, philosophically-speaking, I sure would **like** it to all work
out, but………
| 
