From: m.l.vere@durham.ac.uk
Date: Tue May 16 2006 - 08:43:15 MDT
> Just say that a Sysop adopted m.l.vere@durham.ac.uk 's two axioms:
> > 1. Prohibiting any action which affects another member of the group,
> > unless that member has wilfully expressed for that action to be
> > allowed (a form of domain protection).
>
> (Nb: can you say "Golden Rule"?)
Isn't the 'golden rule' from christianity? 'do unto others as you would have
them do unto you'?
> > 2. Giving all group members equal resource entitlement
>
> Would you expect such a sysop to not only enforce the axioms directly,
> but also for others to adhere to them where they were operating
> outside the Sysop's influence?
Will there be anything outside the Sysop's influence? I severely doubt it, and
if there was and this problem arrose, I would imagine the sysop merely
extending said influence.
> As in, would you expect a Sysop to
> allow Robin to voluntarily accompany Leslie into the woods*
'unless that member has wilfully expressed for that action to be allowed'
Yes, yes I would.
> Of course the Sysop is going to influence others to adhere to its
> moral axioms. Leslie and Robins future actions might take place away
> from the Sysop's field of influence, but the Sysop will always be
> making actions that affect the future, because you can't make actions
> that affect the present! (Insert TangentT here)
>
> Brief ad hominem interlude...
>
> If you expect others to respect your domain, what's that but a form of
> morality?
If you define it as such then I guess so - language isnt really good enough to
express precisely what is meant in debates like this. The key factor is that I
expect nothing on a moral basis, merely that this is what I see as the best
state of affairs. Call my view an 'alternative morality' as opposed to 'moral
nihilism' if you must - its semantics. The real (and entire) point behind this
and my initial post is:
Current morality is relative/does not exist (depends on precise definition of
terms). It is a social construct which has been beneficial to most in the
human era. In the posthuman era, it is unlikely to be beneficial, and it is
also unlikely that (as no absolte morality) a single prescriptive morality
imposed by a sysop would be optimal. Whilst idealy the best solution would be
to allow each posthuman to develop his/her/its own moral system/lack thereof
to live by, there will be more than one. As such a form of domain protection
is required, but should be kept to an absolute minimum.
> Hell, you even suggest giving resources out equally.
> Communist! I happen to own large tracts of land that have more than
> 1/6billionth of the planet's solar collection potential and also
> fossil energy reserves buried beneath.* You ain't stealing my land/
> energy resources!
>
> * This is a lie. My point is that one 2006human's share of the
> earth's crust is 85ha, less than what some people own.
Of course, but a sysop would have no trouble taking it.
> Back to sysops...
>
> If the sysop is vastly more powerful than other entities, it may be
> able to act in a genie-like way, and grants wishes that don't
> interfere with other human's "domains". Why should humans/post-humans
> be forced not to interfere with each others domains?
>
> For a Sysop, because "might makes right" ;P
Yep.
> Otherwise, because there might be some (objective?) reason not to.
Nope, just the way I, and hopefully others, would prefer it.
> Furthermore, why should the sysop not adversely affect humans?
> Because the Sysop's progenitors decided to make it that way.
Yep.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT