From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 19:20:13 MDT
> Such quibbles can be used by a wily opponent to advance his position
> against
> the transhumanist, perhaps under the pretext of "saving the spirit of
> the
> society", or similar gobbledygook. It might be better to stick to the
> simpler argument - killing a lot of people by denying them rejuvenation
> treatment they want and can afford, is mass murder, and as such prima
> facie
> bad, even if not genocidal.
It's good not to get too deeply involved in reality and the meaning of
life and death, because you might discover that what you want is not
physical immortality at all.
Cf. Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/
isbninquiry.asp?isbn=019824908X
Parfit isn't a True Believer but he still gives good reasons, for
instance, not to always do whatever you believe to be rationally best
for yourself. Even though those things might sound "prima facie" good,
it's not clear that they are. Parfit isn't a sophist. This would
include things like preventing potential genocides and your own death.
But you may have a moral imperative to die. It may be the best
possible thing you could do - to actually be brave. There certainly
are prima facie obvious cases where bravery would demand self-sacrifice
and if one took bravery to be among the highest of human moral
abilities, then one would think that making a world in which people
could be brave would be a high moral priority for people who are trying
to decide whether to make a world in which people live forever or in
which they die.
If you think it's sophistry, try to rewrite human morality without
bravery and say genuinely to yourself that you want to want THAT.
Best,
Robbie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 19:31:25 MDT