Ethics and evolution/was Re: [extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a gametheorystandpoint ?

[Technotranscendence]

On Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:44 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
wrote:
> > > Here's an ethical question for you guys.  Suppose I am a skeptic
> > > regarding the sillier stuff we hear about global warming: that it
> > > was the cause of the snowstorms in Los Angeles this past winter,
> > > that it makes more and bigger hurricanes, that it causes the
> > > genitals of the children of outer Mongolia to mature at the age
> > > of four, whatever.
> > >
> > > Suppose I am in a position to make money off of that hype.  Would
> > > that be unethical? If I don't actually *contribute* to the
> > > silliness, but rather take advantage of that which is already
> > > out there, entirely thru
> > > free market reaction.  Do you see anything wrong with that?
> >
> > I think the main ethical question would be whether your actions
cause
> > harm, from your perspective.  If you don't agree with this theory
> > about global warming, yet you are, say, selling products that tie
> > into the theory somehow, then your actions would arguably increase
> > belief in what you view as a false idea.  So I think that would be
> > ethically wrong.
>
> On the contrary, holding others to their own beliefs, having them put
> their money where their minds are, and gaining or suffering the
> consequences as a result, is evolution in action. Are you saing
> evolution is unethical?

Evolution is not ethical; it just is.  Ethics only comes in when there's
a choice made and an agent can be held to that choice.  Evolution is
just the way the world is.  It furnishes ethical beings with a context
in which to make choices.  Evolution gave you a brain and a set of
hands, but it's up to you to use them ethically.  To say, of anything,
that it's "evolution in action" is no different than allowing anything
to be justified -- theft, murder, lying, rape, whatever, or their
opposites.

In this case, too, by "selling" the view, might not Spike be bringing a
lot of bad consequences on himself?  After all, if he reinforces wrong
views and then these same people, e.g., support bad policies doesn't
that, ultimately, hurt him?  Yes, he might make a quick buck now, but
what about the wider implications.  The world has enough foolish ideas
in it already, why add to the mess?:)

Regards,

Dan
    See "Family, Social Order, and Government" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/FamilySOG.html