Re: Objective morality (Was: Re: Moral behavior of SIs)
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:22:08 EST

In a message dated 99-02-26 13:50:47 EST, you write:

What about this shot at an objective morality?

Metamorality: Morality is by definition good. For morality to exist, there has to be something. Morality cannot exist in nothing. Before the big bang there was no universe, thus no morality.

I think I disagree. Before there was sentient life, there was no morality. Morality makes no sense (as a system to support our decision-making) without a self-reflective ability to choose between yes and no, should and should not.
Life which does not have this ability is simply following its blind genetic coding.

Morality: Anything that makes the universe exist longer and fights the entropy is moral. The highest form of morality is whatever increases extropy.

But isn't this an arbitrary definition (ie., non-objective?). Why should we think that it is a good definition? How does it help us predict human behavior?

Couldn't it be as simple as that?

Things are never that simple :-)


Sounds interesting, Eric. Please show me how this would proscribe murder and theft.

Thanks for great thinking,