X-Message-Number: 9246
From: Ettinger <>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:36:23 EST
Subject: the way the world works

Thomas, your notions of "correct" and "incorrect" (#9245) seem to me clearly
inappropriate and inconsistent.

You say, "Correct and incorrect apply to logic, mathematics, and statements
about HOW THE WORLD WORKS [emphasis added]. They do not apply to statements
about how we should behave, or statements of what we want."

"How we should behave" relates tightly to "how the world works." We "should"
behave in ways that tend to further our most important or most basic goals or
values. (I sometimes express this by saying that our most general and basic
goal is to maximize personal satisfaction over future time--even though a very
extended discussion is required to explore and clarify the full meaning and
actual application.)

In most people there exist genetically based, evolutionarily derived,
tendencies both toward self preservation and self sacrifice. In general, the
former is the more basic and more important. If you choose to give precedence
to the latter, you have less chance to maximize future satisfaction--that is
how the world works. Therefore it is WRONG (in general) to give precedence to
self sacrifice.

You note that some people don't worry about consistency. Actually, MOST people
worry very little about consistency--and those who do think the former are
ignorant or stupid or trapped in tradition. 

You say, "...showing...inconsistency is the closest I can come to arguing with
someone about their values." Come on, Thomas, this isn't "coming close"--this
is arguing. And the main point is not the "inconsistency" but the RESULT. (You
yourself have referred to confronting the individual with "consequences.") You
are trying to persuade the person to choose life--not to meet some
intellectual ideal of consistency, but to further his most basic need and aim.

If you are trying to hit a target with an arrow, there are right and wrong
ways, better and worse ways to go about it. The choice is not arbitrary, no
matter what the archer may feel or prefer. If his main goal is to hit the
target, then he had better take account of how the world works and use the
appropriate techniques. If he just says, "I'm entitled to my own opinion," and
(say) uses crooked arrows, then he is "wrong" in the only sense that makes
sense.

Do most of us not, in fact, try implicitly to apply my definition frequently?
Don't we try to persuade people to reduce the value they place on the pleasure
of smoking? Don't we try to teach children to think of the longer term instead
of immediate gratification? Don't we try incessantly to improve our habits and
outlook, the better to conform to our main goals? 

You say that a pro-survival argument only works if the individual values
survival in the first place. Strictly speaking, that isn't true. What the
individual values--whether he knows it or not--is not primarily survival for
its own sake, but survival for the sake of future satisfaction. If you want
future satisfaction (and if you think survival is likely to bring it), then it
is objectively WRONG to make choices (or maintain values) that reduce the
likelihood of survival.

Further, it is rare for a (young, healthy) person not to value survival, but
common for such a person to allow other values to interfere. In these
(majority) cases, an argument is indeed appropriate and (see above) frequently
used and sometimes effective.

Summing up: It seems to me your statement, that right/wrong do not apply to
value judgments, is inconsistent with common sense and the appropriate use of
language. 

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9246