[ExI] Libertarianism wins again...

[Dan]

Not really. You seem to be narrowly down any objective value system to one that's purely stifling. But core moral precepts in such a system would incluyde, in my reckoning, things like allowing people to determine how they live their lives. One might see these as meta-values or, as Den Utl and Rassmussen put it, metanorms. (I don't completely agree with them at every turn.) For instance, in the social sphere (and since libertarianism kicked this off, I guess this isn't completely tangential), a metanorm would be Kant's view of treating each person (human or posthuman) not as a means but as an end in her or himself.
 
Or do you disagree with this? Would you say that this is merely a personal preference and that a moral or political system that made some or all people means to others' ends would be just as good? But doesn't that relativized system seem to be just the sort of system that was used to justify traditional hierarchical moral and political systems? (Granted, traditional defenses of such systems often appealed to reason and nature -- e.g., some people are naturally weak and should be ruled.)
 
Regards,
 
Dan
From: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
To: Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>; ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Libertarianism wins again...


2011/7/25 Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>

For the record, I don't believe that's what Socrates believed -- if Plato's works are any guide. It seems to me he believed there were moral truths that were discoverable by reason and that were not inventions of the gods (or God), social convention, or the state. (One need not agree with his particular moral claims here or even with his particular methods to agree with this wider point.)

Does not change much, does it? The real issue is whether one believes in self-determination and diversity or in value systems which are allegedly eternal and universal, irrespective of whether they are revealed (albeit obviously not established) by God, by inner outrage or by Reason.

Let us say that anti-transhumanists are invariably in the second camp, and they may play one or another of such cards depending on their background or audience, "inner outrage" and "puck factor" being however especially fashionable in recent days.
 


>
>From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 5:15 PM 
>
>Subject: Re: [ExI] Libertarianism wins again...
>
>
>On 7/22/2011 3:12 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>
>> Socrates made good arguments that
>> what is right and wrong doesn't come from God or the state, but from
>> an inner state of outrage at the criminal act.
>
>Ah, sturdy foundations of outrage such as "Those stinking disgusting ho-mo-sex-uals make me *puke*! Get the pitch and pitchfork, Mabel!"
>
>Damien Broderick
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110726/5fb50386/attachment.html>