[ExI] Fwd: Morphological freedom

[William Flynn Wallace]

The dictionary says that ethics pertains to business and professions.
While that may be somewhat limiting, just think of all the businesses and
professions and other jobs that have been created in the last hundred years
that never existed before.

So ethics had to be created every time some new thing appeared.  I think
it's unlikely that you can take the ethics from one position and totally
apply it to another, say, from being a federal judge to being a music
composer.  Thus every one is to a certain extent, unique.

Morals, on the other hand, are far more generalizable, eh?

bill w

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:36 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Note that wards do not lose all their rights; their protector can only
>> legitimately impose things on them compatible with the set of rights they
>> retain because of their capacities. Morphological freedom is generally a
>> complex right requiring full freedom, so the wards might not enjoy it if
>> they do not enjoy their freedom right. But the limitation of freedom of a
>> ward does not mean freedom is not inalienable (just that the expression of
>> freedom may sometimes legitimately be constrained).
>>
>> ### Having your rights legitimately constrained still does take them
> away, doesn't it? And for some types of wards the constraint persists
> indefinitely in time. Outside of a Platonic realm, rights are given or
> taken, and not intrinsic or unalterable.
>
> Is ethics more like mathematics, the permanent realm, or physics, the
> temporal realm?
>
> I tend to see ethics as a set of insights from analysis of real-world
> interactions. This makes me rather wary of the notion of inalienable
> properties. In the real world new discoveries are possible, upsetting
> existing certainties.
> ---------------------
>
>
>> The suicide argument is fun. I think it does not follow if one grounds MF
>> in autonomy, since the loss of autonomy in death is different from the loss
>> of autonomy in self-reduction.
>
>
> ### Is it a true qualitative difference or merely one of degree?
>
> -------------------
>
>
>> But I am not convinced in-group norms make for good ethics (they might
>> make for good morality), especially if universal ethical principles turn
>> out to exist.
>
>
> ### If by universal ethical principles you mean applicable to all
> conceivable communities, then I would proffer that such principles do not
> exist. You could say that all valid ethical principles must have computable
> results relevant to their target audiences - but this is more of
> meta-ethical consideration, maybe even a partial restatement of the
> definition of ethics.
>
> ------------------
>
>>
>> My own position, relevant to my chosen in-group, is that existing ingroup
>>> members generally have full ownership rights to their own bodies and minds,
>>> unless they voluntarily relinquish them (in a meaning much different from
>>> Carrico's "non-duressed choice"), and this entails the right to modify
>>> themselves using the resources they have at their disposal. This does not
>>> entail a duty on others to provide such resources. New members of the
>>> in-group such as children and other wards should be gifted such ownership
>>> rights on achieving the age of majority, or be allowed to pay a market
>>> price to purchase such rights. The details of modification rights should be
>>> freely tradeable among in-group members.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds nice. As a Bayesian libertarian I generally agree.
>>
>> ### I'd be interested in hearing where you disagree, since disagreeing
> with you offers learning opportunities for me.
>
> Rafał
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160311/ce553e0c/attachment.html>