[ExI] Natural law theory for the future/was Re: Libertarianism wins again...

[Dan]

I disagree. Natural law as conceived in its neo-Aristotelean form seems able to deal with the kinds of cases you mention. Admittedly, it might give definite answers to all problems and might have some problems dealing with certain classes of problems, but this is no different than any other philosophy of law.
 
To take the case of non-aggression, this would depend on the nature of the beings in question, but it's hard to see why a being of one kind would have autonomy when dealing with some other autonomous beings, but would lose that autonomy simply because the other beings are somehow more advanced. That seems akin ot saying you have autonomy just so long as you share the same culture, technology, and level of education as me, but should I suddenly acquire more culture by, say, watching more foreign films and visiting more museums, a better tablet than you, and earn another degree, you suddenly lose your autonomy vis-a-vis me.
 
I would also suspect, too, that were you to come upon a superior being -- superior along some dimension, such as technology, intelligence, or mastery of dance steps -- you wouldn't suddenly allow that being to treat you as a floor mat.
 
Regards,
 
Dan
From: David Lubkin <lubkin at unreasonable.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Libertarianism wins again...

Stefano wrote:

> This is a typical argument of the partisans of a concept of a "natural" law. In fact, on closer inspection, what different legal systems do is not to prohibit murder, but to specify when killing could be considered as "murder" and thus forbidden, as to its object, agent, and possible exhonerating circumstances.

Or putting a more extropian spin on the question, even the Non-Aggression
Principle has broad, debatable presumptions to it. Is initiation of force
against a fellow member of a hive species, a clone of oneself, an AI, a
human/non-human mix, an upload, an upload of oneself, an acephalic
clone of oneself, or by a being who is "as far above us on the evolutionary
scale as we are above the amoeba"  a violation?

"Natural law" might be a useful concept for today but it is insufficient for
our range of impending realities.

The basis for the future lies, I think, in areas like economics and game
theory.

-- David.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110726/39316f27/attachment.html>