[extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution

Technotranscendence neptune at superlink.net
Mon Sep 5 13:24:46 UTC 2005


On Monday, September 05, 2005 4:34 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote:
>> 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 saying
>> evolution is unethical?
>
> Yes. Evolution is the cruelest, most savage method
> of improving species ever devised. Heard of 'nature
> red in tooth and claw'? We can do better.

I don't think it's "the cruelest, most savage method of improving the
species..."  There are far worse methods and I'm not sure that would
improve the species -- unless one can show that there's a genetic basis
for holding wrong opinions.

Also, elsewhere, I've tried to point out that evolution is not
ethical -- meaning it's ethically neutral.  It just is.  Saying it's
ethical (or unethical) is just like claiming that the law of physics are
ethical (or unethical).

>> I would say the entrepreneur is selling not a machine,
>> but an education. There are some lessons that
>> people have to learn the hard way.
>
> This is why Libertarians have little concern with the
> billions of dollars of fraud and snake-oil in the free
> market system and the resulting misery and
> unhappiness for millions of people.

This is a broad generalization.  First off, not all libertarians or even
Libertarians agree with Mike here.  I certainly don't.  Second, fraud is
considered a crime -- a property rights violation, to be specific -- by
most forms of libertarianism.  As such, it is an initiation of force and
can be, within the ambit of libertarian rights theory, retaliated
against.  Third, it's not the free market system per se, but human
cupidity and stupidity that causes these problems.  (The free market is,
after all, just a way of people interacting with each other.  There
really are only two basic ways for people to interact: through free
choice or through some form of command.)

> Libs come across as 'Never give a sucker an even
> break' types.  And 'They deserve all they get' is
> common also.

While true, this is not necessarily a libertarian view.  The real
problem is what to do in cases of human stupidity.  It's immoral to take
advantage of it, but it's not always easy to prove that any seeming case
of taking advantage of it is actually one.  There's also the problem
that people should just have common sense and we can't expect the state
to hold everyone's hand through life.  In that case, it's not a matter
of letting fools come to harm, but letting people learn from their
mistakes -- as opposed to creating a state that can try to prevent bad
things from happening but gets out of control and starts regulating
everything AND creates incentives not to learn.

> If you are not as smart. well-educated, healthy, fit
> and capable as a Lib then '**ck you, you're on
> your own'.

Nope.  There's private charity and people helping each other out.  These
are, too, widespread tendencies and any libertarian society I'd care to
live in would be people by individuals who are decent and looking to
create wealth rather than take wealth from the ignorant or the stupid.
(Quite a few libertarians I know including yours truly, for example,
donated money to relief efforts for the victims of Katrina.)  But this
should be true of any society and people typically develop, when given
the chance, ways of spotting the charlatans.  E.g., word of mouth works
wonders when it comes to auto mechanics.  Why is that?  It's not an
example of the state coming in or of anti-fraud activists.  It's just
people naturally not wanting to be cheated and also realizing that
everyone is not an automotive genius, yet finding ways to spread
information in a spontaneous fashion.

Regards,

Dan
    See "Comments on Pancritical Rationalism" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/PCR.html




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list