figuring out what Good is - in response to Lauren

This is a cool place to start. I agree that the destruction of Vietnam foliage by chemicals is bad. However, there are a lot of caveats there.

What if that action saved hundreds of thousands of lives? Would that still be bad? Would it be acceptable? Would it be good?

What if that action saved one life? What would that be?

Basically, can we say that if it saves X number of lives, then it would be a good think to do?
This is an example of the "paradox of the heap" I think.

Also, is the creation of those chemical inherently a bad action? Or is it the application of them that is bad? To take that back to Cat's Cradle: do we blame the scientists, who are so far removed from the "human element" that they do not understand the implications of what they are doing, or do we blame the actors that put those inventions to use? Who is more stupid: Felix Hoenikker for creating Ice-9? Or his children for having the chance to destroy it and not doing so?

I would say that it is the application of the substance that is bad. I don't think the creation, in itself, is inherently bad. Although it may have the potential to be catastrophic, humans still have the choice of whether or not to use it.

This is a really difficult argument though. You could almost continue in this fashion forever.

One of the things I just read in The Argumentative Indian is about duty vs. consequence in the debate between Krishna and Arjuna presented in the Bhagavad Gita: "A tussle between two contrary moral positions--Krishna's emphasis on doing one's duty, on one side, and Arjuna's focus on avoiding bad consequences (and generating good ones) on the other."
It seems we could apply this directly to Cats Cradle. Is it the duty of a scientist to pursue truth, or knowledge? Or should they attempt to avoid the potential harm that could come from their endeavors?

Has the bolder moved at all? Or has it just become more complicated

peace