[ExI] Libertarianism wins again...

[Dan]

Your view seems to be that if there are any moral truths, these must needs be something someone can beat into someone else. Am I correct? In which case, if one presumes such a view, it should not be surprising that one finds the possibility that a moral truth might be something like allowing people to determine their own lives.
 
Since you seem to agree with self-determination, then wouldn't this impose a side constraint on everyone? I mean, in particular, if you hold that all should be free to self-determine, then this imposes limits on what other may do -- if one is to remain consistent. The limits would be that everyone else can't interfere in someone's self-determination. And that person couldn't, likewise, interfere in anyone else's self-determination. Wouldn't this lead to libertarianism? In other words, you do as you please with you and the same applies to all others.
 
If not, what do you mean? In my view, either you accept this is a universal principle or you don't. If you don't, there are a few possibilities. One is no one is allowed self-determination. Another is that one or some persons has this right, but no one else does. The one or some can self-determine, but everyone else can be pushed around.
 
Regarding how you see morality or political philosophy, I don't think the choice is between transhumanism and a 'parochial "yuck reaction."' (I actually believe many different views on this are compatible with transhumanism, but this means little. This is like saying many different views of morality are compatible with atheism. This doesn't tell us whether all these views are equivalent or just as acceptable.)
 
Finally, when have I offered anything by rational arguments for my position here? My attempt above and previous was to show that the alternatives are contradictory or at least make questionable assumptions (here, questionable assumptions about moral*).
 
Regards,
 
Dan
 
* It seems to me much of your view here is based on the fear of any sort of objective or universal morality ending up as something akin to traditional strict religious moralities, such as those of the zealots in the Abrahimic faiths. To me, this is akin to the fear that finding objective phsyical laws will end up in the same thing. It's almost like accepting William S. Burroughs' line about one accepting either "everything is true, nothing is permitted" or "nothing is true, everything is permitted" -- and, naturally, being on the side of freedom, one must choose against truth. In my view, truth and freedom go together and I wouldn't surrender morality or objectivity to the zealots.
 
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: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Libertarianism wins again...


2011/7/26 Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>

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. 

Or simply as a paradox. 

If one accepts peoples' liberty to determine how they live, you implicitely accept that they can, at least factually, pick and choose their value system.

To believe that you have a moral right to impose your "core moral precepts", implies denying that they can, or at least that they should. No big deals, monotheists, and their secular offspring, have been doing that for centuries.

Only, one cannot have its pie and eat it too. And transhumanism, as any other rising, minority, revolutionary, school of thought, is way better off if a few doubts exist about the existence of eternal, universal moral truths that regularly end up being the parochial "yuck reaction" of the old, pre-revolutionary mainstream in any given society.

This puts an end to any meaningful ethical or political or aesthetical discussion? By no mean. 

Simply, we have humbly to recognise that as long as we accept to limit ourselves to strictly "rational" arguments, the only way to advocate for a given position can only be based either on finding some common ground with your opponents (or, more importantly, with the public, the audience you share) or on showing the ultimate inconsistency of their own position.

Now, I suspect that this is not really possible with radical and consequent anti-transhumanists, so we just have to agree to disagree, and wait and see which worldview is going to prevail...

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110727/6afa681c/attachment.html>