[ExI] Reframing transhumanism as good vs. evil

Natasha Vita-More natasha at natasha.cc
Thu Jan 20 15:29:57 UTC 2011


 
Anders wrote:

BillK wrote:
> If transhumanists advocate utilitarian medical treatment they will be 
> outcasts in society and universally hated.
>   

[cut]
"Utilitarianism is however not the end all of consequentialism, there are
plenty of more sophisticated forms. Just dropping the calculation of
utilities and instead looking at more general patterns of consequences
produces plenty of fairly acceptable systems (like prioritarianism, where
one should give extra weight to the people in most need). Rule
consequentialism (act according to rules that have good consequences) can
approximate deontological ethics to an arbitrary degree."

Happiness is not and objective doctrine and no one has the moral authorship
to decide what is happiness. If so, I'd be very, very unhappy here in Texas,
the US, and planet Earth.  But the outcomes and consequences of an act is
highly valuable from a design perspective.  This relates to the elegance of
an act or action, which takes us outside the philosophical and political
realms and into functionalism.

[cut]
"I think the transhumanist goal ought to be to establish a bunch of our
concepts as valid and relevant: morphological freedom, Freita's volitional
normative health concept, and enhancement as a valid medical pursuit."

Yes.  But I'd have to revise morphological freedom to make it both a
positive right and a negative right. I know Max and you are more
knowledgeable than me on this theory, but the average person needs to easily
understand this concept and not be turned of by a misunderstanding of a
negative right.  I also think Freitas' volitional normative health idea is
spot on, and enhancement needs to be part of that volitional norm. The
sooner we address aspects of a transitional and transformative norm, the
better.  

Best,
Natasha




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list