On 12-27-97 William Elliot wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello William and thanks for writing, 
  
 WE>  JB> However, as I pointed out to Clarence, when given, a  
 WE>  JB> either or statement of either good or evil, and not good  
 WE>  JB> leaves us with evil.  
 
 WE> This presumes that good and evil are truly mutually 
 
  Yep, (actually this assumes "evil" is equivalent to 
"not-good" which in fact may not be true) which is something 
I set up for Clarence, when I set up the argument.  IOW, in our, 
Clarence's and my, discussion, I expressed (probably not to 
well) I was making such an assumption which in fact may not be
true; however, I did it for a reason.   
  I invite you to read my latest post to him. 
  
 WE> exclusive witch is the  case except when good is equivalent 
 WE> to not-evil.  Consider good to have money and bad to owe 
 
  Hmm, even if good were equivalent to "not-evil"? The 
situation turns into "not-evil" and "evil", simply put A (evil) 
and not A (evil) which in Aristolian logic is mutually exclusive. 
However, in the world of Fuzzy logic such things can happen. 
  
 WE> money.  Then it is not true that 'either good or bad' for 
 WE> having no money and having no debts is neither good nor bad. 
   
  In this situation as I pointed out to Clarence either or 
situations are -ONLY VALID- when dealing with NOT more than 
TWO classes.  In the example you post, we are dealing NOT with 
TWO classes but rather THREE. One, good to have money, two, 
bad to owe money and three having no money or having no debts, 
neither.   Which in this case, a either or argument can be invalid. 
  However, let us change the situation a bit: 
 
        1) either one has money or one doesn't have money (please 
           notice doesn't have money includes those who owe or 
           those in the neither category, e.g. neither owes money or 
           has money). 
        2) all those who are have money are good 
        3) all those who don't have money are bad 
        4) one doesn't have money 
        5) therefore, one is bad 
 
 WE> Likewise to view all actions as either good or evil is to 
 WE> deny the real alternative of the ethical neutral.   
 
  Yep and yet again we are dealing with three classes 1) those 
actions considered ethically good, 2) those actions considered 
ethically bad (which is not good) and 3) those actions considered 
ethically neutral (which is considered not good). 
  However, in the Aristolian world, there is no way one 
can act in ethically good ways (A stands for ethically good 
ways) AND act in ethically NOT GOOD ways (not A) at the 
same time.  
  However, and I think an imporatant point to stress,
if there are more than two catergories (good and not good 
which includes evil and neutral) when one speaks of -not 
good-, one isn't or can't make statements to distinguish 
between evil or neutral. 
  
 WE> Additionally, evil seems a rather strong word for I 
 WE> consider bad things such as a black head not to be evil  
 WE> like an infected pimple can be.  So I could claim that evil  
 
  I agree. 
  
        [snip] 
  
 WE> Seeing things only as either good or evil is rather narrow. 
 
  As I expressed, before, in the Arisotelian world, things are 
either "good", A, or "not good", not A. However, this does nothing 
in speaking about making distinctions about "not goods" as in 
"bad" or "neutral." 
  
        [snip] 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------