Re: sentient rights (was RE: Battleground God)

From: Mark Walker (
Date: Thu Feb 21 2002 - 09:24:38 MST

Anders wrote:
> One can try combining different ethical theories with extropianism and
> see what happens. I would say that utilitarianism and extropianism are
> not a very successful combination; such an extropian utilitarianism
> would either have to be based on maximizing extropy or have to show that
> increasing personal extropy and increasing utility are identical. In any
> case it would tend to run over indiviuals in the pursuit of
> maximization, and it seems hard to combine with the self organization
> principle in the old version of the principles. A rights based form of
> extropianism seems far more consistent, although we still have to find a
> derivation of rights that convinces.
You have expressed an aversion to deontology before but I that is the most
natural and common defence of rights. I argue for a consquentialist form of
a (neo-) Aristotelian ethic of Perfectionism in "Absolute Perfectionism" . Perfectionism is more
individualistic than say a utilitarian form of conquentialism in that the
pursuit of perfection is something that the individual must actively pursue
rather than passively receive. There is no end to what we might due for
others in on the classic utilitarian model, for a perfectionist we can at
best provide individuals the preconditions for the pursuit of their own
perfection. However, I don't know how extropianism sits with perfectionism,
e.g., perfectionism still has scope for other regarding virtues rather than
the virtue of selfishness, I don't know how this sits with Extropianism.
Perhaps such virtues are considered gratuitous since we can always count on
the invisible hand to catch those who stumble.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:40 MST