Samael wrote:
> Forwarded as requested.
>
> Looking forward to your reply.
>
> Samael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samael <Samael@dial.pipex.com>
> To: extropians@extropy.com <extropians@extropy.com>
> Date: 13 January 1999 10:16
> Subject: Re: Property and life
>
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Michael S. Lorrey <retroman@together.net>
> >>Objective ethics: a group of heuristics which have proven over time (even
> >at
> >>evolutionary time scales) to provide the greatest benefit to the long term
> >>rational self interest of an individual or group that adheres to the
> >heuristics.
> >>Because we live in an objective reality ruled by concrete laws of physics
> >at the
> >>time and space scales at which we as individuals and as a group exist,
> >which
> >>dictate the structure and behavior of the systems or methods called
> >'evolution',
> >>and 'society', that objective reality dictates the types of heuristics
> >which
> >>fulfill the first premise.
> >
> >
> >Thank you. This is a well thought definition and I'm glad that you're
> >actually trying to justify yourself rather than just issuing rhetoric (it
> >reads somewhat like a quote, being different to your usual style, but that
> >they hey, that doesn't mean it's bad!).
> >
> >I have problems with only two parts of it.
> >1) The 'long term' seems a bit arbitrary. Do we come back in 2 weeks to
> see
> >how they are getting on, or pop back in a thousand years to see if they're
> >ancestors are still about?
I would say that since it is evolution we are talking about, then it is the longest possible span of reproducing the genomes of the individual in as many reproductions as possible. Over the past several centuries, or past couple thousand years, we have plenty of practical evidence and data that certain heuristics which are commonly referred to as morals or ethics tend to benefit their adherents in long term survival of their genome. This recognizes that there are plenty of FAILED morals or ethics which did not stand the test of time (state communism, nazism, cannibalism), and possibly some which provide no benefit or harm, and are merely memetic baggage. This is because there is survival of the fittest in memes as well as in genes.
> >
> >2) The 'greatest benefit'. We're back to subjectivity. Is the greatest
> >benefit having the longest lives? Having the most money? Having the most
> >fun? Being closest to God's plan?
> >
What is the goal of evolution? Reproduction. All other goals are to optimize this. Gaining wealth, long life, the most fun, are all subsets of the primary evolutionary drive to reproduce. It is not subjective, merely a measure of abstraction.
> we
> >>were evolved as predators and scavengers (as well as agricultural
> >gatherers),
> >>and therefore have a natural right to kill animals and eat meat.
> >
> >
> >_EVERYTHING IS NATURAL!!!!_
> >
> >If it exists, it is natural. Nature includes _Everything_. There is no
> >scientific divider between the natural and the unnatural. If everything
> >which naturally occurs has the right to happen, then there are rights to
> >_evertything_, which makes as much sense as there being no rights at all.
> >
Now you are starting to understand, a little. Every being IS natural, but only some things have being. A society or government is not a living thing. A human or a cow is a living thing. A society or government is merely an abstract construction, a tool, that we individual beings use to get along with each other as our each individual set of rights overlaps. Society in and of itself has no rights, and government only has such rights as we individual beings delegate to it.
Mike Lorrey