[extropy-chat] Pleasing Oneself

[A B]

Hi Jef,
   
  To clear up any possible confusion, I did not intend this post or thread name to exclusively imply sexual self-satisfaction, but rather any activity that provides oneself with pleasure; from watching TV to decoding the Universe. Although in principle, I don't see anything morally wrong with sexual self-satisfaction. Perhaps I should have been more careful in choosing a subject title. Oh well, maybe it will generate more thread attention ;-)  Anyway, moving on ...
   
  Jef writes:
   
  "So I understand that you believe pleasure is the ultimate measure of morality."
   
  *Subjective* pleasure {as well as capacity for subjective pleasure} (in it's myriad forms to include those which some people would consider distasteful) over the "largest scope" -meaning the highest number of sentient beings regardless of their station of existence, yes.
   
  Jef writes:
   
  "I understand you are claiming that morality is measured with respect to pleasure integrated over all sentient beings, right? Do you also integrate over all time? So that which provides the greatest pleasure for the greatest number for the greatest time is the most moral?"
   
  Fundamentally, yes. However, this does not necessarily imply that one must inexorably commit immoral acts against other sentients in order to achieve this goal.
   
  Jef writes:
   
  "I assume you acknowledge the necessity of some short term sacrifice of pleasure in order to achieve the greater pleasure. How do you see that working in principle?"
   
  Well, we are dealing in abstract ideals and not in the grit of reality. However, achieving the "greater pleasure" does not inevitably require imposing suffering, or a loss of pleasure, or a loss of capacity for pleasure on any *other* sentient beings. For example, if 99% of hard working Americans chose to donate $30.00 to the advancement of altruistic AGI, well... good things would probably happen. 
   
  Now donating that $30.00 may necessitate that a donor remain at his crappy job that he hates, but he always retains the choice not to donate and not to work, if he so chooses. It's a willful sacrifice.
   
  Jef writes:
   
  "Based on your reasoning, if 50 percent of the population are feeling less than average pleasure, would it be a moral good to eliminate them from the population in order to raise the overall level of pleasure?"
   
  No, definitely not. A more moral action would be to lift the lower 50% out of their unhappiness. Perhaps I could make my original statement more applicable by saying:
   
  Pleasing oneself only becomes arguably immoral or ammoral when the cost of the self-pleasure is a loss of pleasure in other sentients, a gain in suffering of other sentients, or a loss of capacity for pleasure in other sentients. 
   
  In this case, if you were to kill the lower 50% you'd be bringing their capacity for subjective pleasure down to zero, in addition to eliminating whatever low level of pleasure that they did manage to experience to begin with.
   
  Best Wishes,
   
  Jeffrey Herrlich

   
   
  Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
  Interesting subject line for this thread. I hope it isn't self-referential?

AB wrote:

> Some time ago Jef Albright wrote:
>> "Seeking pleasure is ammoral , but tends to correlate with activity that we would assess as "good"."
> 
> I would go so far as to say that achieving pleasure
> for oneself is, per se, beyond just being ammoral.
> I would argue that achieving pleasure for oneself
> is positively moral. It is only incidental that the
> entity that appears to sense and enjoy the pleasure
> is the one who is commonly considered to be "oneself".
> IOW, pleasing oneself is a special case of a more general
> condition (what Jef might consider "greater scope") of
> the whole of sentient beings experiencing pleasure.
> That's not to say that all sentients have a desire
> to please any sentient apart from themselves - as
> many examples will testify. However, I think that
> most humans would want other sentients to experience
> pleasure, all else being equal. IMHO, pleasing oneself
> only becomes arguably immoral (or ammoral) when the
> cost of the self-pleasure is a loss of pleasure in
> other sentients or a gain in suffering of other sentients.

So I understand that you believe pleasure is the ultimate measure of morality.

I understand you are claiming that morality is measured with respect to pleasure integrated over all sentient beings, right? Do you also integrate over all time? So that which provides the greatest pleasure for the greatest number for the greatest time is the most moral?

I assume you acknowledge the necessity of some short term sacrifice of pleasure in order to achieve the greater pleasure. How do you see that working in principle?

Based on your reasoning, if 50 percent of the population are feeling less than average pleasure, would it be a moral good to eliminate them from the population in order to raise the overall level of pleasure?

- Jef







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


 
---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070201/5e130832/attachment.html>