Essay RFC delayed.

[Richard Stallman]

     Richards is a deontological world view.  He believes
    that software should be free and not freeing is a bad thing.
    Deontological views believe in a absolute systems of morals and ideals.
    Eric has a consequentialist world view, which mean actions (such as
    software licensing) are only evil in their effects (ie a Windows monopoly
    on the desktop.)

I think you're mistaken about me, because I arrive at my principles by
looking at the consequences if people violate them.  My views about
free software as a matter of principle are based on the consequences
of having freedom or not having freedom.  So I am a consequentialist
too.  (Of course, there have to be some moral axioms down there
somewhere; without them, we can't judge the consequences.)

In our community, idealism and firm principles are essential for our
practical success.  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html.

I think Eric's practical conclusions are also based ultimately on
principles.  They have to be.

I do believe that moral judgments are absolute, but what that means is
that I don't think they are relative to who is judging.  A moral
relativist would find it hard to campaign to change society's view of
what is right and wrong.

I think that Eric's views are equally absolute, in this sense.  When
someone disagrees with Eric, he says, "I think you're wrong"--just as
I do.


By the way, the argument that "nobody is really unselfish" is a
semantic game: it is based on a wrong definition.  The argument is
consistent, but it has nothing to do with whether people can be, in
truth, unselfish.

The argument is based on defining an act as selfish if you get some
kind of gratification for it--and then arguing that every choice is
made for the sake of some kind of gratification.

Some right-wing people like to say this proves no act is really
unselfish, and that the distinction is an illusion.  I think it proves
that the wrong definition of "selfish" was used.

Here's a better one.  An unselfish act is one which you choose because
it is helps others.  A selfish act is one which you choose, without
being influenced by trying to help others.  (I am sure this definition
could be stated better, but that's not essential for the question at
hand.)

In either case, you get some kind of gratification from your choice.
The difference is that in one case your contribution to the well-being
of others adds importantly to your gratification, while in the other
case it does not.

This definition has the merit of being useful for thinking about real
life issues in ethics.  There are many possibilities for what people
can find gratifying.  Training people to find the well-being of others
gratifying, and not to find the suffering of others gratifying, is an
important part of upbringing in society.