Re: Nanotech Restrictions (was: RE: Transparency Debate)

From: Adrian Tymes (
Date: Sun Apr 09 2000 - 17:00:35 MDT

phil osborn wrote:
> Re ethics. The pure benefit analysis just doesn't quite do the trick, I'm
> really sorry to say (as explicated really nicely by Xerene and Strackon in a
> late '60's Invictus article). It provides plenty of reasons to look like
> you're moral and to encourage other people to be moral, and it even rules
> out casual dishonestly on the grounds of the additional mental processing
> involved in lieing, as David Friedman discussed in an article in "Liberty,"
> but it doesn't address the professional criminal at all.
> On the other hand, the real reason most people are moral is that they value
> visibility and emotional openness - something like the old, rarely-heard
> concept of honor. They despise having to live a lie, hide psychologically
> like a rat, etc. These costs - of living a criminal life - can be quite
> devastating. Check out "The Talented Mr. Ripley," if you haven't already.

And these aren't in one's long-term interest because...? That, and the
material benefits one can reap from it, would seem to address the
professional criminal.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:11 MDT