[extropy-chat] What the #$?! are rights anyway?

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jun 16, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 02:47:16PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote:
>
>> I am hoping that there might be something superior to
>> social contract theory. Especially since as you say it
>> does not protect minorities from majorities. Also it
>> does not speak to the cause of individuals apart from
>> society. What if for example we are speaking of a
>> hermit? Or a unique non-human entity (the first AGI or
>
> Millennia of thought have failed to come up with a superior  
> alternative;
> in fact, there seems to be a marked convergence to social contract or
> utilitarianism among materialists, and with the latter there's the
> question of one why should care about everyone else's utility.

I have a suspicion that a quite benign ethics becomes a necessity for  
a species (and its created intelligences) to survive the technology  
bloom to and through Singularity.   If so then this would be a sort  
of ultimate utility criteria.

>
> Your questions to Amara about the auriferous hermit or the  
> uploadphilic
> AI are similar to how I gave up on natural rights.  (In my case it was
> "how can I convince a Nazi they're wrong?")  Not only do I see no
> answer, I fail to see how absolute rights can be relevant.  Say  
> someone
> proves that the hermit has a right to the gold -- so what?  What
> prevents you from killing him anyway?  What prevents the AI from
> uploading Amara no matter what argument she makes?  Nothing.
>

What kind of world do you want to live in?  Would you prefer a world  
where only your vigilance and self-defense capabilities protect  
you?   Would the AI prefer a world where it fears advancement it does  
not control lest a more advanced model use it for scrap?

> Rights without consequences seem pointless.  Note that theistic
> doctrines promised consequences, even if those were vague or  
> untestable:
> Heaven, Hell, karma, general forture or misfortune.  Having stripped
> away the supernatural, naturalists have to back up the rights they
> assert by real force or incentives.

Karma is not particularly theistic.  In point of fact we do make  
relative heaven or hell for ourselves and one another right here in  
the good old natural world.  We do sow consequences that we or others  
reap.  With more technology at our disposal I suspect we will do so  
much more efficiently and thoroughly.    I do not see where only  
force or incentives can be used to come up with a workable system of  
ethics.    Our own best interest and survival is the ultimate incentive.

>
>> ET)? Is the fact that ET is not part of "society" mean
>> that we can dissect him?
>
> Of course we *can*.  Do we want to?  Do we want to be that kind of
> people, or tell our children we did that, or hide that sort of  
> thing as
> a secret?  Do we fear he came from a greater society which might get
> pissed off if it finds out?
>

Exactly.

- samantha