[extropy-chat] SI morality

[Paul Bridger]

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Paul Bridger wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Paul carbone wrote:
>>    
>>
>>'t understand how attempting to be "completely rational" could be
>>anything other than a rational choice. Rationality is self-affirming -
>>if your core value is rationality (as opposed to faith) then clearly
>>being completely rational is better than being incompletely rational.
>>    
>>
>
>We have been over parts of this previously.  Rational does not equal moral.
>I was raked over the coals for suggesting the proper response to 911 was
>to nuke Afghanistan.  Rational (I was perhaps exercising my Vulcan side)
>but not moral.  Net result 2+ years later we are *still* looking for
>Osama at who knows what cost.
>
>  
>
Sorry to drag you over previously covered ground. I don't agree that 
nuking afghanistan would have been rational. It all depends what your 
goals are. If you want to reduce worldwide terrorism (the stated goal), 
then nuking Israel and Washington would have been a more rational start. 
Or, if for some reason you wanted to nuke where the terrorists actually 
came from, perhaps Saudi Arabia.
But of course, nuking anything would be profoundly irrational if you 
value survival of the human race.

My reply is also profoundly irrational, because I don't want to talk 
about politics when there are so many more interesting things to talk about.

>An argument may be completely rational -- but may be based on false
>premises.  
>  
>
True. However, to have rational reasoning based on irrational premises 
is just as useless as irrational reasoning based on...well, anything. 
Premises must also be verifiable. They must relate to direct 
observations of the world.

Paul.