[extropy-chat] Re: Ethics and evolution

[Technotranscendence]

On Monday, September 05, 2005 12:17 PM Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Don't people have a right to stupidity?

You're confusing morality with legal rights.  Also, in this case, yes,
people have right to stupidity, but that does not make it _right_ -- in
moral, not legal sense -- to take advantage of their stupidity.  It's
also not wrong, either morally or legally, to criticize people for being
stupid -- i.e., to point out their stupidity and try to help them to
overcome it.  (To disarm you in advance, I'm not saying there's an
obligation to do so or that those engaging in activities you disagree
with or think stupid -- after all, they might get more enjoyment out of
them than you would -- don't have the right to ignore you.)

> To eat fat laden burgers, drink too much alcohol, take
> too much drugs, not exercise, smoke cigars, chew
> tobacco, have casual sex?

But are these examples of human stupidity or just differences in values?
Maybe some people just like to eat burgers, get drunk, get high, have a
good time, and do things you would disapprove of.  So?  My point was
more about when you lie to other people for gain because they are too
ignorant or stupid to see through the lie.  That's far different than
disagreeing with their preferences.

> By BillK's ethics, selling sugar laden lemonade at a
> street corner, or couches and wide screen televisions, is
> not morally different from selling anti-ghost pills or
> land along the east side of the San Andreas fault.
I don't know enough about BillK to say...  The difference, of course, is
that selling lemonade, couches, and wide screen TV sets is not done,
anywhere that I've seen, by appealing to their health values.  In fact,
I doubt anyone who tried to sell them based on that would get very far
on that.  Yes, people will still buy them, but not because they actually
believe they're healthy.

> It is not your place to judge what other people want
> to buy and consume. It isn't the place of the state to
> stop them.

Actually, I can judge whatever I want.  The libertarian position is not
one against judgment but against forcing people to adhere to my (or
anyone else's) judgment.  I can judge as I please and remain a
libertarian -- just as you made judgments above about people engaging in
certain activities being stupid -- as long as I don't violate anyone
else's rights.  In fact, freedom of expression includes the right to
express disapproval.  To put this into a concrete case, if you were
selling bona fide snake oil I'd find nothing wrong with telling people
that, in fact, your folk remedy is just snake oil.  Now, I'm sure you
wouldn't disapprove of this.

One of the problems I find, too, is that many people who want the state
to step in work under the assumption that most people are either too
stupid to figure out this stupid or too callous to care enough to help
others out.  At the same time, they seem to assume that while most
people suffer in this fashion, the members of the state have somehow
managed to transcend these cognitive and moral failings.  The truth
seems to be this.  If society were really chocked full of those people a
powerful regulatory state would be even less likely to help them out
because its members would come from the same mass of stupid or morally
depraved individuals.  Thus, unless they can show that somehow the state
can get above this -- exactly how is never stated -- it's merely wishful
thinking and common sense would be not to give one group of people
(which is what the state is: one group of people) more power than the
rest of society.  (I'm not even talking about libertarianism here or
rights theory and all that -- just plain good sense.  Hopefully, people
don't need to become full-fledged libertarians to have that in this one
small area.)

Regards,

Dan
    See "Freedom Above or Tyranny Below" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/SpaceFreedom.html