[extropy-chat] Prime Directive

[A B]

Hi Anders,
   
  Anders writes: 
   
  ..."What is it about consciousness that makes it so special?"
   
  I agree completely with what George Dvorsky wrote. I would also add that it is only through consciousness that pleasure is possible (which most beings would choose to maximize), and alternatively, it is only through consciousness that suffering is possible (which most beings would choose to minimize). That alone makes consciousness pretty darned important, in my book.
   
  Anders writes:
   
  "Kant had the idea that rationality was the important thing for moral
agency. A being unable to make rational considerations would be unable to
behave morally (and certainly unable to formulate an ethics, a theory of
moral behavior). This doesn't mean that one ought to treat non-rational
entities in any way one likes, but the moral restrictions are much lesser
than for interactions with other moral agents. One can argue for example
that hurting animals is bad both because it breaks aesthetic values and
makes the person hurting the animals a more brutal person."
   
  Although that makes a bit of sense in a very cold and removed way, it still doesn't address for example, the needless subjective suffering of the tortured animal. Another issue that's going to throw a wrench into the engine, is that before too long we will be able to technologically uplift the original non-rational beings to super-rational levels  -  the undeveloped *potential* of a conscious being will also become a major ethical issue.
   
  Anders writes:
   
  "I wonder if we really would end up with a mostly unpleasant (it can't
really become unjust in this case) universe if we acknowledged physics as
the underlying basis for morality."...
   
  I think you can be assured of that outcome. Just take a quick survey of what physics/Darwinian selection has given us so far - an extremely top-heavy ratio of total suffering : to total pleasure.
   
  Anders writes:
   
  "But with sufficient rationality among all the rational
entities they would be able to foresee consequences well."
   
  That's among our biggest obstacles. By any chance have you ever seen an episode of the TV show "Jerry Springer" ?  ...............................
   
  Anders writes:
   
  "All the entities who would be badly off in the might makes right world would hence band together to ensure that it would not occur (e.g. by resisting the strong
or by making it irrational to pursue that world because they would
irrevocably blow up a doomsday device if it did occur, etc)."
   
  That strategy might have worked in 16th century Earth, for example. But in the age of exponential recursive self-improvement (and other rapid bootstrapping techniques), methinks it ain't gonna happen.
   
  Anders writes:
   
  "... we can still as moderately rational beings construct systems of heuristics that have good evidence and reasoning behind them that promote wellbeing."
   
  That is certainly true, but it won't be enough for that "might makes right" Universe.
   
  Best Wishes,
   
  Jeffrey Herrlich
   
    

  Anders Sandberg <asa at nada.kth.se> wrote:
  
A B wrote:
> Robert writes:
>
> "Might I suggest that "consciousness" is a poor criteria for deciding what
> to preserve or not preserve. Yes I know -- without that our moral compass
> is adrift in a sea of chaos. Life is a dish almost always served cold."
>
> Should we just abandon the quaint notion of ethics altogether? Should we
> just leave physics as the only judge of what is morally acceptable or
> abhorrent? Surely you can foresee that doing so would make this a rather
> unpleasant and/or unjust Universe for the majority of conscious beings.
> That doesn't bother you?

I also wonder why consciousness, of all properties, should be ethically
important. Why not the ability to experience love, or having six legs?
What is it about consciousness that makes it so special?

Kant had the idea that rationality was the important thing for moral
agency. A being unable to make rational considerations would be unable to
behave morally (and certainly unable to formulate an ethics, a theory of
moral behavior). This doesn't mean that one ought to treat non-rational
entities in any way one likes, but the moral restrictions are much lesser
than for interactions with other moral agents. One can argue for example
that hurting animals is bad both because it breaks aesthetic values and
makes the person hurting the animals a more brutal person.

I wonder if we really would end up with a mostly unpleasant (it can't
really become unjust in this case) universe if we acknowledged physics as
the underlying basis for morality. Sure, a stupid "might makes right"
world is upleasant. But with sufficient rationality among all the rational
entities they would be able to foresee consequences well. All the entities
who would be badly off in the might makes right world would hence band
together to ensure that it would not occur (e.g. by resisting the strong
or by making it irrational to pursue that world because they would
irrevocably blow up a doomsday device if it did occur, etc). While we
today do not have any great theory of how one should behave we can still
as moderately rational beings construct systems of heuristics that have
good evidence and reasoning behind them that promote wellbeing.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


 		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061027/e2a69bd9/attachment.html>