X-Message-Number: 8894
Date:  Fri, 05 Dec 97 00:13:28 
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Re: #8892

JLH1942, #8892:

>I am simply stating that happiness is the moral purpose of one's life
>and life is the standard of value---the which one gauges whether an
>action is good or bad.  Why would someone need ethics, which states or
>tells a person what they should do or what actions to take, if they
>are guaranteed of being alive no matter what.

Because some ways of conducting oneself will lead to greater 
happiness/less unhappiness than others. In particular, the way we 
behave toward others affects our own states of happiness. Good 
behavior toward others should reap benefits, particularly with an 
unlimited lifespan. Ethics deals with what should or should not be 
considered good behavior toward others.

You say, "life is the 
standard of value--the [by?] which one gauges whether an action is 
good or bad." Let's say, for a thought experiment, we consider two 
actions, A and B. If A will result in my death and B will not, you 
would say "B is better than A." But if neither A nor B will result in 
my death, or both have an equal chance of resulting in my death, 
would you say it is impossible to rank them? Suppose that A will lead 
to excruciating pain for a very long time, while B will produce joy 
for a very long time, with no attendant complications whatever. Then 
I would say B is better than A. To tie this into ethics, B may be an 
act that benefits others, who in turn act to benefit me, while A may 
be an act that achieves some superficial benefit at the expense of 
others, who then act in such a way that overall, I lose out badly. 
Ethics does not simply deal with the question of whether you live or 
die. If you couldn't die no matter what, ethics would still be 
meaningful.

> True just because they
>are alive doesn't mean they will be happy.  There are plenty examples
>of that but without the need for ethics and without living an ethical
>life then how can one gain happiness.  Happiness just doesn't happen? 
>That is because there are no causeless emotions.  All emotions have
>causes.  Immortality isn't going to happen through cryogentics and
>forme that is o.k.  I just want to use the technology so that I can be
>unfrozen when possible.  But, this technology won't make one happy.

It seems to me you are confusing several ideas here. I agree, 
however, that if it works cryonics still won't guarantee happiness. 
And I do think there is a need for ethics to realize the best life 
may have to offer. I just don't think the threat or possibility of death is 
necessary to make ethics meaningful.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8894