From: Edward Miller (progressive_1987@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat May 13 2006 - 01:17:47 MDT
The guy who posted this is the same guy that has been
posting at BetterHumans under the name Crippled_Sloth
He has posted this exact same thing here:
http://www.betterhumans.com/forums/thread/7205.aspx
My guess is this guy is one of the from transtopia...
the site that just was exposed as being white
supremicist.
His comments on betterhumans have been very odd and
showed a lack of empathy for fellow humans and a very
similar tone as transtopia
--- micah glasser <micahglasser@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that "traditional morality" is a part of
> memetic evolution. Groups
> of human beings who are in competition for resources
> organize their activity
> in a more or less efficient manner relative to their
> respective competitors.
> Naturally if an individual in one of these
> socio-cultural groups refuses to
> abide by the code of organization
> (morality/law/religiouspractice) then the
> group will find some way to enforce their will. As
> time progresses and
> cultures evolve through a sequence of cultural
> replication, extinction, and
> mutation, more and more efficient systems of human
> organization and activity
> are realized. So all artifice (including morality)
> is a part of memetic
> natural selection. As such morality must evolve
> along with man. Asking what
> is "moral" and what is ultimately "good" is the most
> radical of
> philosophical questions which may not be answerable.
> I act morally because it is in my nature to do so -
> I am a human being
> living in 21st century western civilization and I
> find myself naturally
> sharing the same memetic programming as most others
> in this civilization.
> Also, because of that memetic programing and the
> genetic gift of rationality
> I am able to identify myself with the human species
> and act toward the
> rational goal of preserving my species.
> In the end, however, the course of the evolution of
> the cosmos as been
> predetermined. You may be free to choose one action
> as better than another
> but you are not free to choose why you think the
> telos of that action is
> better.
>
> On 5/12/06, David Picon Alvarez
> <eleuteri@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: <m.l.vere@durham.ac.uk>
> > > Crockners Rules
> > Nice to know. Same apply to me.
> >
> > > I've been lurking for a while, and the one thing
> that has really struck
> > me
> > is
> > > that whilst a (largely commendable) near worship
> of rationality exists
> > on
> > the
> > > SL4 list, this has a huge blindspot. Everyone
> cleaves nearly
> > unquestioningly
> > > to wider societies superstitious moralism.
> >
> > I think you are mistaken. There's quite a variety
> of opinions on the
> > matter
> > of ethics and morality on the list, from those who
> believe there is an
> > objective morality, to those who, like you,
> believe that there's nothing
> > there.
> >
> > > 1. Compassion, gene driven animal emotion -
> evolved to further
> > cooperation
> > > between people - thus increasing chances of
> survival.
> >
> > Check. Note though that increasing chances of
> survival is not teleological
> > as much as consequential. Id est, compassion and
> the like appear, to the
> > right extent and in the right forms, to have
> survival value. Perhaps you
> > should consider that for a bit.
> >
> > > 2. Social conformity - again a gene driven
> animal instinct.
> >
> > Partly gene-driven, probably. Social comformity
> might also derive from
> > culture or reasoned stances.
> >
> > > 3. Societal brainwashing.
> >
> > I'm not sure I see a disjunction between
> categories 2 and 3.
> >
> > > Morality is completely artificial. Right and
> Wrong either do not exist,
> > or
> > > don't matter other than in the qualia that they
> cause the person who
> > believes
> > > he is acting wrongly/rightly - depending on your
> exact definition of
> > terms.
> >
> > You're assuming qualia matter. That's an
> interesting yet controversial
> > point.
> > Also completely artificial is an improperly
> phrased criticism, even if I
> > think I know what you mean. Mathematics is, or
> might be anyway, completely
> > artificial. The sciences are completely
> artificial. Language is completely
> > artificial. I'd say these things matter.
> Artificial is not a signifier of
> > worth. More importantly, as you point out above,
> morality has pretty clear
> > genetic bases, which are not artificial (unless
> evolution is an
> > artificer).
> >
> > > It could be argued that in some cases, acting
> morally benefits he/she
> > who
> > does
> > > so due to reciprocity - but this is only in some
> cases and this course
> > of
> > > action could be entirely derived from
> self-interest by moral nihilists.
> >
> > How so? A moral nihilist does not believe that any
> action is preferrable
> > to
> > any other action in terms of moral content. Why
> would a moral nihilist
> > argue
> > for cooperative constructive behaviour that
> benefits individuals?
> > Self-interest is as artificial (far more) than
> evolved morality.
> >
> > > Obviously, the first 2 points are a part of us -
> so suspending ones
> > disbelief
> > > concerning morality in everyday life may well
> lead to a happier more
> > > fulfilling human life. However, once radical
> transhuman technologies
> > arrive,
> > > this will no-longer be nescissarilly true.
> >
> > It depends on what ways people choose to
> self-modify. I would argue that
> > some form of ethos is going to have to be kept,
> unless we want to have
> > serious trouble in the mid term. It would probably
> be a lot cleaner in
> > terms
> > of referential transparency and such than evolved
> morality, though.
> >
> > > As such, when considering/planning posthumanity
> we should reject
> > traditional
> > > morality and embrace moral nihilism. This is as
> the potential gain of
> > > posthumanity (and acting entirely rationally
> when planning/considering
> > it - to
> > > ensure the best outcome) far outweighs the
> positive qualia felt by being
> > > compassionate when considering posthumanity.
> >
> > This is the imo most misguided part of your post.
> You've just used a
> > should.
> > Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot?
> > Also, I don't clearly see why moral nihilism is a
> necessary condition for
> > post-humanity. (And playing the nihilist's
> advocate, why we should care
> > about the gains (gains? stop the value judgements
> right there!) of
> > post-humanity.)
> >
> >
> > --David.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> I swear upon the alter of God, eternal hostility to
> every form of tyranny
> over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT