> From: David Parenteau
> > From: ANTIcarrot
> >Ideally, I believe, rules of ethics should similarly be as
> universal as
> >possible. In my opinion, if a proposed rule of ethics can
> produce a result
> >which is logically foolish (if it for example 'proves' that
> no human before
> >3000BC was a person for example) is flawed.
>
> Hmmm... That was a twist on words that really shades things.
> "Rules" on Gravity are "This is how we observe it works, it
> makes the rules."
> "Rules" in ethics are "This is what we say it should be,
> based on our own
> opinions and viewpoints."
Not quite. Rules on gravity start out as 'this is how I think it works, now
lets see how that theory works out in practice'. One of the things I was
trying to get at here was testing an ethic in some environment other than a
sterile white room. Specifically testing them against your other ethics.
Though different ethical systems may disagree with each other, internally
they should be self consistent and not contradictory.
"Thou shall not kill" and the death penalty are inconsistent. "Thou shall
not murder" and the death penalty is consistent. Such consistency does not
require any particular ethical stance or out-look, merely self-honesty about
how well your beliefs fit together.
I also have a preference for simpler more elegant ethics. An application of
occum's razor and sound engineering if you will. The less complex something
is, the less likelihood it contains a fatal flaw. Also a sense of civic
duty. Having one rule for one group and another rule for another group (or
failing to enforce the same rule the same way) can lead to all sorts of
national problems which can come back to personally bite me, or you, in the
arse.
> Option 1: Kill XXX. Three more people besides him die.
The option I'd go for in most situations and legal jurisdictions. Right and
wrong wouldn't enter into it for me. It would be something that needs to be
done.
> Basic concept:
> Make more.
That is certainly the fundamental drive of all life forms.
> The sole purpose of living things, and the
> measure of their success, is their ability
> to make more of themselves.
I disagree here. It doesn't have to be for us. We are capable of coming up
with alternative ways to spend our time, and capable of enjoying those
alternative ways. We are capable of rejecting that end goal whole heartedly
and seeking others in its place. With the rise of spoken and written
language, and the extelligence that went with it, our capacity to shape the
next generation is no longer limited solely to genetics.
I'm not sure it's the sole measure of success either. By that measure famine
ravaged Ethiopia in the 1980s was fantastically more successful than
Britain, France, or Germany. In more complex and meaningful measures, they
were a complete failure by comparison; so much that the rest of the world
had to organise Live Aid to pull them out of the mess they had created for
themselves. (No one forced them to have children without end. Noone forced
their government to spend $10M per day on military defence while its
citizens starved.)
> Even "play" and even all advanced concepts of "sentience" are
> really just extended desires that lead to that basic goal.
Mostly true for monkeys and men. We're so closely related it's more accurate
to call us 'pan homo familiaris' or 'pan narranas' than 'homo sapien' and
far less egotistical. Silly victorians made a complete pigs ear of that
whole latin system.
> So Morality is actually a balance within which the good of the many
> outweighs the good of a few.
Or you can see it as a insurance scheme fund everyone pays into. People only
do it because they get something out of it; usually a sense of security.
> But how do you build a jail out of a planet?
Watch them from orbit and nuke anything more advanced than a steam engine is
the usual method.
> So, morals can be very immoral if you're not careful. Misguided
> morals. There's a wonderful concept. "It's MEAN to keep ANY
> animal locked
> up! These ferrets must go free!" Okay, there may be morals that say
> keeping an animal locked up is bad. But at the same time,
> ferrets as they
> exist right now are not capable of surviving more than a few
> days in the
> wild. So that wonderfully moral person who frees them has
> condemned them
> to death.
It's mean to breed any animal with the express purposes of deliberately
treating it badly. My solution here would not be to open the cages, but find
the XXX who owns them and have a little 'chat' with them.
> Morality is a balancing act between hurting
> others, allowing
> others to be hurt, and hurting yourself. Or, more
> specifically, the lack
> of all three.
And intelligent summary.
ANTIcarrot.
___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi_at_gr_at_! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Received on Tue Feb 20 2007 - 18:40:22 CST