[extropy-chat] Re: Moral Relativism

[giorgio gaviraghi]

somebody before compared this debate to the sex of
angels one.
this seems to be going further to include the sexual
orientation of the angels.
I just would like that you consider the following:
according to Kardashev civilization level
classification, based mostly on energy compsumtion, we
are not yet at stage 1, a planetary level society, 
actually we are approaching 0.8 level.
After that there are two more to go
level 2 an interplanetry society, level 3 an
interstellar society. for fans we can have four more
levels but that goes beyond the point.
But that's mostly a territorial classification.
If we could follow a similar scheme for human life I
would, by logic, deduct the following:
Phase 1, technological singularity and theoretical
human immortality (all diseases and aging alterations
eliminated)we are not there yet but we are close say
0.8 too
Phase 2-enhanced humans, intellianimals and AI plus
life forms, including universal brain accessibility
Phase 3- mind \body separation, mind travel and mind
occupation of bodiesand\or entities natural or
artificial
Phase 4- mind as energy ....
going further we reach God, meaning we are
God.(theoretically speaking)
considering all the above, debatable and subject to
hundred of different opinions and the absolute
underpositioning of current humans in the universe,
how can we define morality? or even try to do it with
current standards?

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> ha scritto:
> 
> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
> > > Once they reach an answer in their moral
> calculation
> > >(either a good one or a bad one) the objectivists
> will hold that the
> > >stepfather ought to do what he ought BECAUSE it
> is his duty,
> > > regardless of whether it is his desire or not.
> The subjective
> > > component of decision, desire, falls out of the
> equation. 
> > >
> > Not really, because you have not examined why one
> feels 'duty bound'.
> 
> Am I correct, Dirk, in saying your argument is that
> there is no
> difference between one persons desire to live
> morally and another
> persons desire to live licentiously, that both
> lifestyles are
> desire-based?
> 
> The problem is that one involves the application of
> reason to structure
> ones life, while the other is merely a base reaction
> to ones
> instinctual urges without reasoning, reflection,
> introspection.
> 
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of
> human freedom.
> It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of
> slaves."
>                                       -William Pitt
> (1759-1806) 
> Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
> mobile phone. 
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


		
___________________________________ 
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger: E' molto più divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica… Scaricalo ora! 
http://it.messenger.yahoo.it