[ExI] Fermi Paradox and Transcension

[Stefano Vaj]

On 11 September 2012 02:52, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think knowing
> the difference between right and wrong and willfully acting wrongly,
> greatly outnumbers the instances where one has trouble figuring out
> what is right, and then innocently making the "wrong" choice.
>

Besides the fact that I consider that first comes a given ethical system,
and only then we can speak of "right" and "wrong" in that system (same as
for postulates with regard to a geometric theorem), there is no real
ethical discussion upon the fact that it is wrong to do what one considers
wrong.

That is, unless perhaps I think that you are doing the right thing while
thinking it is wrong because I adhere to a different ethical system.

But ethics is the discourse upon what we *should* do. The discourse upon
what we actually do is just ethology.

Please help me out here with some examples.  Different moral
> philosophies, and some of those moral dilemmas.
>

A moral dilemma is a situation where you have two different courses of
action, and a discussion (at least in your internal theatre) is opened on
which would be the (more) moral one, the one that should be adopted by
those who have a high "morality". Moral, ie, ethical systems, offer
solutions to such dilemmas, which are by definition different (otherwise
they would be one and the same). OTOH, sometimes different moral
philosophies (that is, the philosophy on which a moral system is construed)
may converge for entirely different reasons into the same solution - for
instance, a Kantian, a christian and a utilitarian may agree that in
scenario X the right thing is option A even though the rationale and
justification behind that choice varies wildly.


> But I would like to talk
> about acting ethically within one's own system, where you know the
> difference between right and wrong.
>

Yes, *within* a single ethical system meaningful arguments can be raised
and resolved. I still have a few doubts however that they are "rational"
arguments in the sense of something which can be "calculated".

But yes, I am inclined to conced that as a stupid human is less likely to
see a blatant contradiction than a clever one, a more-than-human entity
might be even quicker in weighing the logical aspects involved.


-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120911/8cc18b20/attachment.html>