Anders Sandberg wrote,
> I have heard some people say that a drug
> that has no side effects and no addiction risk would still be bad and
> ought to be stopped, likely because some anti-hedonistic prejudice. How
> do we handle this kind of situation? I think the best is to work for a
> society where pluralism is accepted, and where most people can deal with
> that other people do not necessarily share their ethics.
That probably sounds good in Sweden, where you don't have the level of
diversity found in North America. However, pluralism and politically correct
tolerance has resulted in an unexpected consequence in that this position has
no tolerance for advocates of unification and objective morality. The irony is
wasted, for the most part, on people who are enamored of the entertaining
spectacle that multi-ethics produces. (Did you hear about the Easter week end
riots in Cincinnati?) Since all ethical systems can't be right (they
contradict each other too much), we might note that they *can* all be wrong.
The objection to drug use derives from Puritan and anti-hedonism memes, as you
point out, and in addition there is the argument that drugs make one dependent
and therefore not at liberty to experience cognitive delights without this
chemical crutch. To which I'd reply, those who need (or want) crutches ought
to have them. Until Samantha becomes super-bodhisattva, we'll just have to
make do with neuroscience applied technologies that include self-medication
(or recreation, as the case may be).
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
Useless hypotheses:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism
Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
(Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:46 MDT