<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">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.</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">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.</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">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.<VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR></SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Regards,</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Dan</SPAN></div>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=hr contentEditable=false readonly="true"></DIV><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> David Lubkin <lubkin@unreasonable.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> ExI chat list <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:24 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [ExI] Libertarianism wins again...<BR></FONT><BR>Stefano wrote:<BR><BR>> 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.<BR><BR>Or putting a more extropian spin on the question, even the Non-Aggression<BR>Principle has broad, debatable presumptions to it. Is initiation of force<BR>against a fellow member of a hive species, a clone of oneself, an AI, a<BR>human/non-human mix, an upload, an upload of oneself, an acephalic<BR>clone of oneself, or by a being who is "as far above us on the evolutionary<BR>scale as we are above the amoeba" a violation?<BR><BR>"Natural law" might be a useful concept for today but it is insufficient for<BR>our range of impending realities.<BR><BR>The basis for the future lies, I think, in areas like economics and game<BR>theory.<BR><BR>-- David.</DIV></DIV></div></body></html>