From: Gordon Worley (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jul 28 2001 - 16:54:47 MDT
At 6:00 PM -0400 7/28/01, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>"Post Singularity, it will suddenly be possible to implement morals as
>constants that are always enforced. Such is desirable because it would
>eventually lead to a utopian society..."
>That has to be the worst opening presentation of the Sysop Scenario I've
>ever heard. No offense. :>
>This is *exactly* what James Higgins means by 1984. *I* wouldn't want to
>live in that world. "Morals", to me, usually have the connotation of
>sexual morality, religious morality, and so on - things for which many
>moral systems pass judgements about things that have no business being
Ah, now I get it (I just sent a message to James off list, but I
think this will clear things up). While people use the word 'moral'
all the time, I know what the word actually means and what a limited
use it actually has. Of course, some people may actually think of
sex in terms of right and wrong, and I think that's my problem right
there. While I might be interesting in talking about sexual behavior
qua morals, other people want to think of it as 'this sexual act is
okay, but this other one over here is evil'.
Thank you for pointing this out to me. I guess I have an explanation
of what morals and ethics are and just what I mean by each to write.
Oh, and BTW: "No offense. :>"; I'm operating on Crocker's Rules (I
was on sysopmind.com one day, came across the page about it, and
realized this was already how I feel, now I can just call it
something), so offending me is next to impossible. :-) Oh, but
reading no offense and seeing a smile does put me in a better mood,
so it probably doesn't hurt to type those few extra bytes. ;-)
-- Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose firstname.lastname@example.org it to mean--neither more nor less.' PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT