[extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-levelrights

[Brian Lee]

The difference between your own child and apes is quite extreme. It's 
fascist to walk into someone else's house and force all the children there 
to each spinach because it is good for them.

Again, there's a difference from withholding a cure and forcing a cure. 
There's a whole line of concerned mothers who refuse to vaccinate their 
children, should you (or the state) force vaccinations because you think it 
is best for them?

A similar line of reasoning goes for Apes. Imagine being an ape, roaming 
around in the woods or grassland or whatever. Suddenly somebody plugs 
something into your brain and you become a modern man. You think this is a 
moral obligation? Ever read "Brave New World"? Remember what happened to 
John Spartan when a "morally advanced" culture tried to uplift him?

Even if we were absolutely certain that uplift is positive, the "moral 
obligation"/"white man's burden" is still extremely hazy. Given our limited 
understanding of what is best, I think all haze disappears.

BAL

>From: "Hughes, James J." <james.hughes at trincoll.edu>
>To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists 
>considergivingapeshuman-levelrights
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:27:34 -0400
>
>
> > Isn't this a bit fascist to force a species to upgrade and
> > achieve a higher intelligence.
>
>I'm not talking about obligations to species, but to individual beings.
>
>Is it fascist to make your kid eat spinach or go to school, even though
>they don't want to?
>
>No, in fact it is immoral not to make them do these things. Because they
>do not yet have the capacity to decide for themselves whether they would
>benefit. One of the reasons we have a moral obligation to make kids go
>to school is so they will eventually become self-governing adults who
>can make decisions for themselves.
>
>The same logic applies to apes.
>
>In fact, although it has to be done so cautiously and with full
>awareness of its previous imperialist abuses, it also applies to the
>relations between advanced societies and simpler societies (see debate
>over the benefits of colonialism and the Prime Directive etc.) One
>example - the British outlawed the practice of widow-burning in India
>and left them with a liberal democratic government, whereas before they
>had widow-burning monarchies.
>
> > I don't think you need to "uplift" any species until they are
> > capable of asking for it.
>
>If a person is mentally retarded, and you have a cure, but they are
>incapable of understanding or requesting the cure, what is your
>obligation?
>
> > You wouldn't support the idea of rounding up all the 85-IQers
> > and forceably making them geniuses, why apes?
>
>People with IQs of 85 aren't considered retarded and can give meaningful
>consent. Retardation is generally below 70, and many retarded adults
>should still be treated as at least co-consenters with their caregivers.
>But yes under a certain level of function I think it is will be our
>obligation to provide cognitive therapy to a retarded person even if the
>parent/guardian objects. Refusing to provide a cure for retardation to a
>person in your care is morally the same as putting them that condition
>to begin with, and society has an obligation to intervene.
>
>------------------------
>James Hughes Ph.D.
>Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
>http://ieet.org
>Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology
>http://jetpress.org
>Williams 229B, Trinity College
>300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106
>(office) 860-297-2376
>director at ieet.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat