[ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs

[Stefan Pernar]

On Dec 16, 2007 11:29 PM, Kevin H <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 16, 2007 2:06 PM, Stefan Pernar <stefan.pernar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 16, 2007 4:57 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 15, 2007 11:45 PM, Kevin H <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 12/13/07, Stefan Pernar <stefan.pernar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >  Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable
> > > > > over non existence
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Preferable according to whom?
> > > >
> > >
> > According to the individual. For an in depth intuitive explanation
> > please see here:
> >
> >
> > http://rationalmorality.info/wiki/index.php?title=The_Moebius_Effect_%28book%29_understanding_choices
> >
>
> Well, I'll just tell you my view.  It is only concrete human beings, like
> you and me, who make evaluations.  So given that many people disagree on the
> worth of existence, I'd suggest that your premise is flawed.
>

Thanks for the feedback. I argue that those who are not in favour of
existence are being irrational. My reason is that those that are against
their own existence would consequently have to remove themselves from
existence (i.e. commit suicide) or remove others from existence (i.e. kill
others), who could alternatively become helpfully allies. I see no practical
purpose whatsoever in killing others unless it is the only way to prevent
them from killing even more others.


>   I've taken a cursory look at your paper and, like most ethical systems
> that I've seen proposed, the first thing I look at is how you move from
> natural statements to normative ones; that is, how do you bridge the gap
> between facts to value?
>

Could you please give me an example where I do that? I would like to make
sure that is not the case.


> To myself, I think the naturalistic fallacy is a basic logical error, one
> that I don't see addressed in your paper.
>

I will look into the naturalistic fallacy and how I can address it in my
paper. Good point.


> And if you want to engage in this kind of ethical speculation you should
> be incredibly clear on how you derive values from facts and where you do
> so.  Most ethical systems I've seen have been very obscure on this point,
> thus hiding their underlying invalidity even to their author.
>

-- 
Stefan Pernar
3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden
#6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi
Chao Yang District
100015 Beijing
P.R. CHINA
Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931
Skype: Stefan.Pernar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071218/3bb6448f/attachment.html>