X-Message-Number: 10170 Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 11:14:38 -0700 From: Brian Manning Delaney <> Subject: Re: What you OUGHT to do References: <> Brook Norton <> wrote: >I'll restate that the underlying assertion is (borrowing >some from Ettinger) ** The only rational >approach for anyone is to try to maximize >personal happiness over future time, >appropriately weighted.** Hi Brook. I think you are wrong, or saying something empty. If you really believe that at "the most basic level, ... the brain is hardwired to always choose to increase happiness," then what you mean by happiness is simply what we choose. Thus, you're saying, at bottom: the only rational approach for anyone is to choose what we choose. Not helpful. As for the "maximized over time" bit, that simply translates as: more (of anything) is better (and don't interfere with someone else's choosing what they choose, whatever such interference would ultimately look like). Thus: live as long as possible, (in any way you want), (unless you have an intractable unhappiness, in which case: die as quickly as possible). But an anti-life-extensionists will rightly ask: Why? and, more importantly, How do I decide the RIGHT WAY to live? That is, they'll ask, with good reason, the very questions we seek to answer. But even if you decided that the brain is not hardwired as you say, or you were able to argue that there's some non-"basic level" way in which the hard-wiring can be circumvented, and thus choice comes into play, there are still the problems of 1) defining happiness; 2) backing up your assertion that trying to maximize it is the only "rational approach" and 3) explaining "appropriately weighted." (1) and (2) are self-explanatory. As for the last: no philosophers these days take any form of consequentialism seriously because of the problem of infinity (there are other problems too). Even under the assumption of an ultimately selfish, hard-wired, happiness-seeking brain, people will be concerned (selfishly, the thought would go) with the happiness of their children, their children's children, etc., as you recognize. Indeed, your argument requires a calculation of ALL the consequences of one's actions, and these are infinite, and thus not quantifiable in a way that admits of comparison. No amount of "weighting" will solve this problem. With no comparison possible, you wouldn't be able decide which choice is best, or even good. Can an omniscient being solve this problem? I think an omniscient being can decide how to live best, but s/he would look at any given two choices and say: "the consequences, by your lights, are the same: infinite, so try looking at the problem differently." (Oh, and: "read Nietzsche." :) It's certainly good to be thinking about these questions, though. We will have to defend ourselves in the coming decade or two when appreciable life-extension -- be it by cryonics or other means -- starts to be possible. Best, Brian. -- Brian Manning Delaney <> Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10170