[extropy-chat] Is the Golden Rule rational?
thomas at thomasoliver.net
Sun Dec 10 18:20:15 UTC 2006
On Dec 2, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Jef Allbright wrote:
> I would point out, again, that the context of rational decision-
> including the scope of expected consequences (including interactees
> interactions over time), is what distinguishes "what works" from "what
> is moral" and that this distinction is of vital importance to
> implementing future systems of rational collaborative social
> decision-making. I think we can either implement these systems
> intentionally, or they will emerge from the marketplace via
> selection of
> what works--if we don't self-destruct before then.
> Strict libertarians will say that a free market is the pure,
> correct and
> complete solution to this problem, but they tend to see growth as
> originating from within, rather than emerging from effective
> between self and the adjacent possible. Deeper thinkers see that
> intentionally cultivating a cooperative environment is just as
> as exploiting that environment. Thus my poetical exhortation to come
> down from the pristine peaks to the more fecund mountain valleys.
I haven't had time lately to participate in this discussion, but
you're tugging my attention here. Perhaps you could comment on a
personal problem: I was once told by a Rational Emotive therapist
that I held an irrational belief that was causing me problems. It
was the golden rule. Do "effective interaction" and "cultivating a
cooperative environment" imply a need for empathy and/or a ban on
aggression? Is the golden rule consistent with a rational society or
a free market? -- Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat