<DIV>Hi Jef,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jef writes:</DIV> <DIV>"Of course, one could easily argue (or simply point out) that you're<BR>consciously seeking pleasure from these activities and emotions."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For sure. But, I would add that my pleasure seeking behavior in the above example is not directly doing harm to any conscious beings, except perhaps to myself - but that right is mine to act on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jef:</DIV> <DIV>"My point was that it is naive, but traditionally and popularly<BR>accepted, to think that pleasure = good. This is not to deny that<BR>they are strongly correlated, but incorrect and dangerous to think<BR>that they are perfectly correlated."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Agreed. But, that's not to say that "pain = good" for anyone besides oneself.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jef:</DIV> <DIV>"Should a parent be prohibited from "inflicting pain" on a child, for<BR>example, the pain of being denied
something dearly wanted by the<BR>child, and for completely stupid reasons (from the child's point of<BR>view)?"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That's a challenging example. I would hope that in the future, pain of all sorts can be reduced, except where it is sought for personal experience.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jef:</DIV> <DIV>"Should you be prohibited from "inflicting death" upon an armed<BR>dangerous intruder threatening your children in your home?"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another good example. However, I think that self-defense or defense of others is branching into another ethical area. For example, it's hard to invoke a "self-defense" defense for running a "Hell" program. If an armed intruder broke into my home and intended to murder my children (which incidentally I don't actually have) then I would not hesitate to "inflict death" upon him.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jef:</DIV> <DIV>"What if your posessions, your freedom and your
livelihood are<BR>threatened to be taken away by a foreign government that "knows" your<BR>way of life is evil because your don't worship the correct god? Would<BR>you be willing to use force to defend yourself, your loved ones, your<BR>interests?"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Basically, same as above. In this situation, I would feel entitled to defend myself and my family, friends, country, etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You make a lot of good points here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Wishes,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jeffrey Herrlich<BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><B><I>Jef Allbright <jef@jefallbright.net></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">On 5/30/06, A B <AUSTRIAAUGUST@YAHOO.COM>wrote:<BR>> An excellent point. Speaking for myself: Sometimes I enjoy a little bit of<BR>> sadness. I never want to loose the ability to be emotionally moved by a
work<BR>> of art, for example. I want to be able to "feel" the despair of Mozart's<BR>> Requiem, and sadness is definitely an element of that.<BR><BR>Of course, one could easily argue (or simply point out) that you're<BR>consciously seeking pleasure from these activities and emotions.<BR><BR>My point was that it is naive, but traditionally and popularly<BR>accepted, to think that pleasure = good. This is not to deny that<BR>they are strongly correlated, but incorrect and dangerous to think<BR>that they are perfectly correlated.<BR><BR>> My point, the only<BR>> point that I've been trying to make since the beginning of this thread is<BR>> this: *I* should be the only being that can inflict pain or death on myself.<BR>> No one and nothing else, should have that "freedom". Ever! Under any<BR>> circumstances. And the same goes for any other conscious being, in my<BR>> opinion.<BR><BR>While I appreciate the good intent you express above, from a
systems<BR>point of view I see it as somewhat incoherent and unrealistic.<BR><BR>I would also offer this insight: Letting go of an unrealistic ideal<BR>may feel like a loss initially, but it opens the door for the gift of<BR>greater understanding.<BR><BR>Should a parent be prohibited from "inflicting pain" on a child, for<BR>example, the pain of being denied something dearly wanted by the<BR>child, and for completely stupid reasons (from the child's point of<BR>view)?<BR><BR>Should you be prohibited from "inflicting death" upon an armed<BR>dangerous intruder threatening your children in your home?<BR><BR>What if your posessions, your freedom and your livelihood are<BR>threatened to be taken away by a foreign government that "knows" your<BR>way of life is evil because your don't worship the correct god? Would<BR>you be willing to use force to defend yourself, your loved ones, your<BR>interests?<BR><BR>Obviously there are countless examples showing that there is no
clear<BR>defining line in such cases. As subjective agents, the best we can do<BR>is act to promote our values based on our internal model approximating<BR>physical reality. Since some actions do in fact work better than<BR>other actions. and given differing models, conflict is intrinsic to<BR>life and a contributor to greater success at a higher level of<BR>organization.<BR><BR>Lest this appear to you to be promoting anarchy, let me emphasize that<BR>humans (and other agents) do share considerable values in common (such<BR>as killing and pain are bad) and increasing awareness of our<BR>increasingly shared values that work tends to lead toward increasingly<BR>moral decision-making.<BR><BR>I'll be happy to continue this discussion depending on your interest.<BR><BR>- Jef<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>extropy-chat mailing list<BR>extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<BR>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p>
<hr size=1>Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman2/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com"> PC-to-Phone Calls</a> using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.