From: Barbara Lamar (blamar@satx.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 20:18:42 MDT
> I believe Barbara that you may be getting at the question of
> "What is the price of a moral code?" -- it is somewhat different
> from but related to "What is the price of a legal code?".
Not at all. If you wish to express it in these terms, then the question I
was getting at is: "What is the price of the ABSENCE of a moral code?"
> [Side note -- and "accepting" the legal code in Europe (presumably
> a civilized society) may end up killing two people (the Martinots)
> so the question gets raised as to when and when not a "code" *should*
> be accepted.]
Although there is usually quite a bit of overlap, a legal code and a moral
code are not identical.
> No, not "The hell with" (since that would lead to chaos and that
> would likely be unextropic).
> My perspective might be best viewed with Spock's observation --
> "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".
> (I would suspect that it is not too different from the
> perspective that may have driven socialist or communist
> societies during the last century.)
This seems to be a different argument from the one you were making earlier.
Rather than saying that it's okay to disregard one's moral code, you now
seem to be arguing that a practical moral code should be in part based on
the assumption that the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few, or the
one.
Having seen results of running businesses and nations using this assumption,
I cannot agree. The main problem with it is that the "needs of the many,"
and which persons qualify as members of {the many} are not always obvious.
In fact, the composition of{the many} seems to be almost completely
subjective, depending on who is making the call. Apparently in your
scenario, the decision maker is whoever has the most potent weapons.
But while I do not agree with the moral code you are suggesting, I would
certainly feel more comfortable dealing with you if I thought you adhered to
SOME moral code rather than just acted on whatever course of action seemed
to you at the moment to be expedient.
> If humanity dies any "moral" code (or legal code) dies with it.
This is true, but the main purpose of moral and legal codes are to allow
people to live together successfully. Your suggestion of mass murder to save
humanity is qualitatively similar to spiking your drinking water with
arsenic to kill bacteria.
> It was quite interesting this week to watch the PBS viewing of
> the documentary on "The Donner Party". It documents quite well
> how "low" humans may need to go to save themselves.
>
> (For those of you who have not seen this, I strongly recommend
> it as a view of a very unpleasant slice of "reality".)
Yes, the fate of the Donner Party is a fascinating tale, but if you're using
it to somehow justify your position, I think you need to explain further.
> The point (for Barbara) would be that in at least some situations
> humans seem willing to discard the "moral code"
Sure, as a lawyer I have the opportunity to observe such situations and such
people on a daily basis.
>The question from an evolutionary
> standpoint might be do we want to accept or be repulsed by situations
> in which the moral code gets discarded?
Well, above you said: <<No, not "The hell with" (since that would lead to
chaos and that would likely be unextropic)>>
I believe that discarding the moral code and "the hell with" the moral code
both mean the same thing. Is your answer to this question therefore that you
would be repulsed by situations in which the moral code gets discarded?
Barbara
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 20:26:51 MDT