Comments on “Confusion, completion, misery and joy”

Therefore much of what you discuss here hinges on the human in question having some inherent moral sense about the actions she takes. So, even if there is not a totalizing moral calculus, there must be some abstract and fundamental moral axioms which can be used, by an individual, as a basis for right action. Do you agree?

Thanks for writing this. It helps me to see things in a new light :)

I don’t understand much of this;
“any finite, fixed set of rules will sometimes require actions that are obviously harmful”. harmful according to what ? If you have fixed rules/principles you believe in and behave according to, how could this lead you to do something harmful, since inevitably in that frame harmful would be defined (what else could it mean otherwise?) as going against your principles (I’m thinking of utilitarianism, but you could also speculate that e.g. a christian wouldn’t consider suffering to be harmful)?

I also don’t understand by what standard could you make an ethical decision, if you aren’t working withing an ethical frame ? How could you consider something wrong without relating it to an ethical code?