[extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality

[Dirk Bruere]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 11:02 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality


> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > Contradiction: killing humans who would otherwise prevent
> > others from gaining access to radical life extension
> > technology, to such a degree as to cause death. Is it wrong
> > to kill such humans or not?
>
> I think this is obviously wrong.  This is a classic example of choosing
the
> lesser of two evils.  Both choices are evil.  Choosing the lesser evil is
> still evil.  I think it confuses the issue to compare them and say that
the
> lesser evil is "good" compared to the worse evil.  I think it makes more
> sense to clearly state that they are both evil.
>
> The question of whether we should choose the lesser of two evils depends
on
> there not being any other possibilities.  But how do you prove a negative?
> I think it can never be proven that there is not a better alternative and
> that we have to choose one of these evils.  We can contrive more
complicated
> scenarios with specific time-limits and artificial constraints, but these
> seem further and further removed from reality the more we simplify them.

Another problem is defining what is meant by 'prevent'.
Does it mean speaking against?
Speaking against pursuasively?
Legislating against in a democracy?
If any of the above you are talking about justifying terrorism and
oppression.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org