X-Message-Number: 2821 From: (Thomas Donaldson) Subject: CRYONICS:more.on.values Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 09:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Hi again! This note is written in response to further discussion of values es on Cryonet by both Robert Ettinger and others. As I pointed out in my last messages, the real issue (to me) behind this discussion --- certainly the reason why I wrote a reply to Ettinger's first message --- was not because of my objections to theories of how people come to have their values, but instead to the problem of whether or not it's ever possible to argue that someone should or ought to have one set of values rather than another. It seems to me that no amount of theory concerning the ORIGIN of values can bear on this question, whether or not the theory is valid. Just because everyone else in the universe has one set of basic values it simply doesn't follow that someone should concur. Perhaps his or her values are superior, and the rest of the universe should listen. And if values come from our basic physiology, and that from our genetics, without testing the results of those values we have no way of deciding (even) whether or not this deviant individual has values which give him/her a superior survival ability. I will also point out that such an argument seems in conflict with our ideas about immortalism, since after all we remain in a very small minority. I'm not making these comments out of a desire that Ettinger and the others in this discussion should fail. On the contrary, it is a major problem in libertarian philosophy as I see it: if we believe that every adult has a right to act however they wish so long as they do not harm others, we have to deal with many cases of people who quite clearly act as they do because of injuries to their brain, or chemical disfunctions of their brain cells --- things that can be shown to be PROVABLY the consequence of physical conditions--- which lead such people to act (as we would see it) so as to injure or even kill themselves. Ssasz of course would claim that we should simply let such people do as they wish, but that isn't really a satisfying suggestion, especially when the person is someone whom we care about for other reasons. And even politically, it suggests that anyone who could PRODUCE such conditions in others has not acted to their detriment and should be allowed to continue his/her activities. In practical terms, of course, this problem may vanish so long as we allow only LOGICALLY CONSISTENT value systems as those an individual may follow. But I would like to see Ettinger succeed --- though my own understanding of the problem makes me think that he has not succeeded at all. Long long life, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2821