X-Message-Number: 82
From att!sun!pyramid!munnari!basser.cs.su.oz.au!pete Tue Apr 25 01:11:36 1989
Received: from pyramid.UUCP by sun.Sun.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA21962; Tue, 25 Apr 89 01:11:36 PDT
Received: by pyramid.pyramid.com (5.61/OSx4.4c-890312)
id AA05287; Tue, 25 Apr 89 00:33:46 -0700
From: sun!munnari!basser.cs.su.oz.au!pete
Message-Id: <>
Received: from basser.cs.su.oz (via murtoa) by munnari.oz with SunIII (5.5)
id AA03084; Tue, 25 Apr 89 16:20:41 EST
(from for ho4cad!kqb)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 16:19:39 EST
To: munnari!ho4cad!kqb
Subject: CRYONICS - I have no nose, and I must sneeze.
Status: RO
Tim writes:
[...]
>Pete writes:
>>If life is guaranteed, then
>>what is moral and what is immoral? Be careful, friend Tim. There be thorns.
>
>There seems to be two kinds of morality.
>
>The first, and more commonly shouted about, happens when other people
>try to get you to believe something to promote their well-being.
[...]
>The second, and more interesting kind, is behaviors that one chooses
>to do to enhance one's own well-being. [...]
It seems that both of these forms assume that human behaviour
is ruled pretty much exclusively by self-interest, enlightened or
otherwise. In the first form, individuals with some variety of authority
instill conventions in the behaviour of others to suit their own ends.
In the second form, conventions are adopted to suit the ends of the
individual.
I suggest that human behaviour is not ruled exclusively by self-interest,
but rather by arbitrary systems of values and expectations acquired mainly
through experience. It is possible to assert that such systems serve
self-interest, and hence the value systems themselves are nugatory. I'd
find that similar to saying that the only 'real' parts of computer networks
are the voltage levels and baud rates - arguably true, but inadequate
with regard to the various protocol layers above the physical.
Given this, it seems that personal ethics are just that - personal, relevant
only within subjective value systems. Formal analyses that treat individuals
as replications of an archetype - as in the case of your Axelrod - are
simply based on untenable assumptions with regard to similarity of values
and mechanisms. I hold the same objection to the myriad philosphies and
psychologies that presume to impose fixed limits on the form of mind.
>It seems to me that
>cooperation and "moral" behavior can arise from a consideration of the
>pragmatics of the situation, and that philosopy and the inevitablity
>of death aren't relevant.
Morality, at a group level, constitutes a set of assumptions which delimit
cooperation and communication. These assumptions can not be globally
defined, for they vary with the individual, and over time. Some societies
define morality in terms of laws and regulations, and it is supposed by
some that the laws, in turn, define the society's morality. Of course, as
long as lawyers continue to make their money, this can not be true :-)
Now, how does widespread immortality affect this 'group morality'? We can
discount the usual codes against killing - no one dies. But we still have
the infliction of pain, deprivation, disability, rape, fraud and general
bad shit. Are these 'immoral' from this social context? After all, you've
got all eternity to recover - by Nietszche's (sp?) lights these acts are
blessings - they 'make you stronger' if you don't die. Likewise, acts
that may currently seem moral - curiousity, courage, fertility - may seem
immoral in a society of immortals. It's difficult to generalise over
all possible eventualities, but I think that inevitability of death is
a relevant issue at the group level.
[...]
>I've read several times the assertion that the inevitability of death
>somehow makes the people trying to cope with it better people. I
>really don't understand this, since in my experience desperate people
>will do nearly anything, and impending doom tends to cause
>desperateness. If you really think that impending doom is good for
>you, I'm sure it is possible to arrange some sort of private doom for
>yourself that will, if you are correct, cause great improvements.
I don't imagine it would work quite like that. I think you're supposed
to get really angry with fate for dealing you such a bum hand, and
strike a blow for <insert point here> with your dying breath. I can
see as how that could be more intense than a thousand year accountancy career.
But you can't get angry with fate if you do it yourself. That's why they
have wars - so you can die gloriously, not by your own hand.
Personally, I should like to live for the forseeable future, but I am
ready to grant that there are circumstances that might change that desire.
One of those circumstances could be the simple weight of years (cf Robert
Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love" and associated works). Another could be
extreme discomfort (cf Harlan Ellison, "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream").
Not knowing any immortals, it is difficult to acquire concrete opinions
with regard to their morals or sanity. I reckon they probably move in
mysterious ways.
--
That is beyond your compression - Galaxy Being, Outer Limits.
(pete%) {uunet,mcvax,ukc,nttlab}!munnari!basser.oz!pete
JANET: (POST) pete% (MAIL) EAN%""
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=82