> hal@finney.org 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!
> asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
> GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
>
Say that we get the technology to vastly improve a person in some fairly
unambiguous way (say indefinite lifespan). Say also that the only way to
make this work is to do some pre-natal hacking.
What is the ethical position in this case? It would seem to me that it would
be highly unethical to allow children to be born without the enhancement. Am
I crazy?
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:31 MDT