X-Message-Number: 16891 From: Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:35:28 EDT Subject: values Once more, mainly for newcomers, an attempt briefly to convey my views on values: First, one must be exceedingly careful about language. "Value" means different things to different people. It is often confused with ethics. I posit first that a "value" is a criterion for decisions, or for a category of decisions. Values therefore relate to goals or ends or needs or desires. One could look at communal values, related to ethics, but I restrict my attention to individual values. The ONLY question of DIRECT importance to YOU is what YOU want. This is essentially the pleasure/pain or hedonistic criterion of value, endorsed by quite a few distinguished philosophers, including Aristotle, although always held only by a small minority. Many problems arise--problems that were insurmountable for the earlier hedonists, epicureans, and utilitarians. You may have conflicting wants. You may have unrecognized wants. You must attempt to balance immediate consequences against delayed consequences. You must try to distinguish between what you (superficially) seem to want against what you (logically/biologically) OUGHT to want. There will be no definitive answers until we know more biology and physics, especially the biology/physics of qualia and the physics of time or space-time. Nevertheless, we are now in a better position than ever before in history to work out tentative rules for values, and several people, including myself, are working on this. At least a few conclusions can be stated with considerable confidence even at this early stage. (1) The only case in which self-destruction is reasonable is one in which your future is confidently calculated to include a preponderance of pain over pleasure, or dissatisfaction over satisfaction. (2) Nothing outside yourself has "intrinsic" value; its value (to you) arises only as it affects you. In the most fundamental sense, there is no such thing as altruism. (3) Nevertheless, the traditional values, including the values of altruism, often have much practical merit. As the main example, you cannot sacrifice major interests of people close to you for minor interests of your own, because that is simply a failing tactic, on several levels. My guess is that Dave Pizer and many others are correct in presuming that the future holds greater empathy and more altruism, for other individuals and other species, and that this will tend to maximize the satisfaction of the individual. But there will be many exceptions and hard choices along the way. Robert Ettinger Cryonics Institute Immortalist Society http://www.cryonics.org Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16891