On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 05:41:41 -0700 (PDT) email@example.com writes:
>dwayne [firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
>>We as a species spend . . . not enough time trying to
>>improve ourselves. . . .
>Only a few big problems with that one:
>1. Who decides what's 'better'?
My own first cut for a societal standard is genetic utilitarianism. It's pretty objective. Disagreements can be worked out with a predisposition to personal liberty when the results of particular choices can't be predicted.
>2. What do you do with people who refuse to become 'better'?
They risk reducing their own genetic success. If they risk other people's genetic success, then they may need to be restrained.
>3. What if those 'bestial' aspects of human personality are actually
>vital to its future development?
Genetic utilitarianism would preserve those.