[extropy-chat] Re: TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with New Pope'sCampaign
nvitamore at austin.rr.com
nvitamore at austin.rr.com
Wed Apr 27 17:53:08 UTC 2005
I think that Amara's post was an assumption that you are following for a
good cause, but it is not what the ExI meeting is about.
This is not a meeting about "moral relativism."
This is a meeting "Dealing with New Pope's Campaign" and the reverberations
that could follow, i.e., life-extension biotechnologies. Also, I'm
wondering why no one picked up on the "cultural wars."
From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky sentience at pobox.com
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:34:05 -0700
To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org, extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: TransColloquium Meeting: Dealing with
Hughes, James J. wrote:
>> until his 'moral relativism' idea is given as the official Church
>> doctrine, I think that the Extropy Institute should not assume too much
>> (yet) about what are the new Church policies.
> Also, among all the things that Cardinal Ratzinger has opposed over the
> years, and seems likely to oppose as Pope, "moral relativism" is close to
> the bottom of the list of things I think we should be jumping to the
> defense of.
> Yes, we believe in moral complexity, tolerance, acknowledgment that there
> are no moral absolutes, and that morals are the product of human reason
> feeling. But I'm not a defender of "moral relativism."
We believe? Speak for yourself - in matters of belief, always. I believe
moral complexity, intolerance, acknowledgment that moral absolutes can vary
from mind to mind, and that morals are the product of human reason and
feeling. I am an opponent of moral relativism. I don't say "we" about any
that and that's the main problem with trying to articulate a transhumanist
position on it.
> What I think we should be focusing on is Benedict's likely focus on
Agreed. From my perspective moral relativism is a complex philosophical
confusion, something that needs to be explained more than fought. But to
fight for moral relativism is a very hard-to-defend ground on which to
one's battlefield, leaving aside that it's not worth defending. Some
analyze that moral relativism helped kill off the Democratic party in the
and they may well be right. See also "Higher Superstition". How do you
people to fight for the idea that nothing is worth fighting for? It may
a fine way to smile down at the philosophically unsophisticated from the
coffeehouse, but it doesn't call a people to arms.
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
More information about the extropy-chat