Thosp, when I read your Sartre post, the thing that grabbed me as familiar, linked to what I had just written, was the ethics without divine prescription. It was very much what I was trying to describe to Bonnie--and Sartre had much to do with my development of my own ethical system, although I see ethics as deriving from the nature of society: social beings MUST have an ethical system in order for the society to survive. And for an individual social being to flourish, the society must flourish; likewise, for the society to flourish, its members must flourish. A society cannot exist unless in general its members are supportive of the society: i.e., each other. Hence the social contract--which dictates that in order for the society to survive, its members must both contribute and benefit--at least to the degree that fosters their contribution. For the work of the society to be accomplished, its members must be able to do the work and they cannot do it if they are lacking in nourishment, shelter, education, health care, and a sense of membership in the society. So "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." The connection between what I was writing and Sartre also is strengthened by an important fact that the Nobel lecture failed to mention; that Sartre was a Marxist, that he subscribed to the Marxist ethic.

Thanks for asking the question: you've forced me to organize my thinking.

--seed