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