[ExI] Libertarianism wins again...

[Dan]

You seemed to be making an appeal to self-determination in opposition to natrual law theories. I'm stating here, for the record, natural law theories, for the most part, have been used to ground self-determination, especially individual self-detemrination. (Group self-determination leads to some serious problems, no? It basically can to the kind of nationalism or other collectivist views that merely seem like pretexts for oppressing minorities and individuals. Relativist notions like race, class, or national logics. I'm not stating you're doing this -- just pointing out how this can be abused.)
 
If you're only using self-detemrination _instrumentally_ -- for a particular limited goal and only in so far as it achieves that goal -- then why bring it up in this context? It's sort of like saying one is honest but only when it serves one's other ends, such as making money or winning favor, but that one will cast honesty aside when it conflicts with these.
 
Now, if you're going to say all that matters is the transhumanist goal, fine. But doesn't that then become your standard and a sort of objective means of judging actions? If not, why not? (Here, it just seems to me not that you've embraced a sort of consistent ethical relativism -- if that's even possible -- but that you've merely adopted transhumanism as your standard and believe this resolves all issues and confutes or transcends all other views.)
 
Regarding the "yuck reaction," I think you're taking what might be called an expressivist view of morality here. I find this view problematic (no surprises there, I'm sure), but wonder if you see the problems with it. Since no one is shy of tossing around book references here, I wonder how you would answer some of the criticisms of this view in Mark Schroeder's _Noncognitivism in Ethics_.
 
Regards,
 
Dan

From: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
To: Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>; ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Libertarianism wins again...

2011/7/27 Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>
Since you seem to agree with self-determination, then wouldn't this impose a side constraint on everyone? 

This is the alleged "paradox" of relativism, but at least for ethical relativism I do not really see the problem.

I am not saying that "self-determination" is itself an absolute, universal moral truth. I simply *take side* for it (needless to say, for mine and for that of those who think like me in the first place), as a political and not as a "rational" stance.

Universalists and relativists are both equally able to fight for their ideas or collective interests, for better and worse. The only difference is that relativists do not need to feel on the side of some kind of "objective" angels to do that, and that they need not think to have a moral duty to impose their views (be it just those related to "core moral tenets") on others.
 
Regarding how you see morality or political philosophy, I don't think the choice is between transhumanism and a 'parochial "yuck reaction."' (I actually believe many different views on this are compatible with transhumanism, but this means little. This is like saying many different views of morality are compatible with atheism. This doesn't tell us whether all these views are equivalent or just as acceptable.)

What I am saying here is that if the "yuck reaction" is recognised as a purely relative and contingent factor, there is no real reason why those who do not share it (say, some hypothetically technophile inhabitants of the Tonga islands) should not be left to their own devices, in spite of their moral views being that of a vanishingly small minority in global terms.

-- 
Stefano Vaj

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110729/7eb62295/attachment.html>