Re: the "not to be born" right

From: Anders Sandberg (
Date: Sat Nov 25 2000 - 09:29:48 MST writes:

> How can we judge these differences of opinion? Should I simply say I am
> Right and He is Wrong? Should I take a live and let live attitude, shrug
> and say that each person does as he chooses? I don't have good answers
> to these questions.

No. Neither do I. But this is also one foundation of liberal tolerance
- since this kind of ethical questions are hard and it is not possible
to prove one solution clearly more right than others, then it is best
to try to set up a system where everyone is free to try out their own
solutions. This is largely a live and let live attitude which I think
is worthwhile. The only place where we need legislation is to deal
with conflicts between people whose views force them to interfere with
each other. Still a huge and hard problem, but at least more manageable.

What is needed here is what other ethical axioms we bring into the
discussion. Many anti-enhancement people base their position on their
view that prenatal enhancements are against the integrity and dignity
of the person. What would a transhumanist defence of such enhancements
be in terms of our views of personal integrity and human dignity? And
reverse, from these views, what would not be allowed?

Anders Sandberg                                      Towards Ascension!                  
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:31 MDT