From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 21:25:16 MDT
Hal writes
> > I wish to discuss a long discarded concept called "freedom"
> > that was widely understood in the 18th century. The word is
> > frequently still used today, but the meaning has all but
> > vanished from the consciousness of 20th and 21st century
> > peoples, and certainly from the posts on this list.
>
> Surely you will agree that freedom does not justify allowing a person to
> do anything he wants to someone who happens to be weak and defenseless.
> It does not justify child abuse.
I certainly agree, but only because I shun the whole notion of
*justification*. It's a harmful enough notion when used in
philosophy; it's use here is even more misleading. If someone
showed me pictures that my neighbor was doing any one of many
nefarious things and asked, "is this justified?", I'd express
my strong outrage at the activity in question. And that
certainly includes child abuse! But unlike most people, *my*
outrage does not automatically translate into action.
> If you agree that child abuse is wrong, then you will probably agree
> that intentionally genetically engineering a child in a harmful way is
> wrong as well.
I can see that there is still little hope of persuading people
at large that there is a big difference between what is wrong,
and what we outlaw. As I was saying, our instinct is to forbid,
by force if necessary, whatever we find wrong.
> The concern is that with present technology, cloning amounts to
> exactly this procedure. It creates a child who, according to
> recent research results, may be prone to birth defects,
> premature aging, and possibly other problems.
No, I do not agree that for someone to genetically engineer a
child, even if I disagree how they do it or what they're aiming
for, should be made illegal. As I say, no existing citizen is
harmed, and for rescuing someone from non-existence, even deformed
people, the activity is something I even praise.
Eliezer writes
> Now, what I next wish to ask is the somewhat revolutionary
> question of whether a sentient being can count as a "citizen"
> even if they *lack* the capability to harm us.
No, and whether they have the ability to harm someone has
nothing to do with it.
> Of course, I believe Lee Corbin has already explicitly declared that he does
> not consider simulated beings - including future Copies of himself, if
> applicable - to have any claim upon the simulators. If we are living in a
> pocket universe, according to Lee, we have no moral right to chide our
> simulators for anything inflicted on us; we are their property.
Sorry to get picky about language again, but I can't help noticing
how "claim upon the simulators" gets conflated with "moral right",
and so on. (I honestly don't know what those mean.) Like I said
earlier, I'd be annoyed if I still had to type after involuntary
uploading. But as I said to Hal, what we are talking about is
FORBIDDING an activity; and just because a number of people may
view it as morally wrong has nothing to do with it. What has much
more to do with it is whether any citizen's liberty is being
compromised; and that is so because history has proven how
extremely beneficial freedom and liberty are EVEN IN CASES
ALL OF WHOSE RAMIFICATIONS WE DON'T UNDERSTAND.
> So I suppose the same one-way relation - total rights on
> one side, no rights on the other - might consistently be
> held by Corbin to apply to a parent and a child.
Alas, what "rights" here means is "what is permitted by the
Authorities". Indeed yes, how other people bring up their
children, whether they inoculate them against disease,
whether they fill their heads with lies and hate, whether
they prostitute them, whether they require them to work
far too many hours out in the fields---all these things
do not come to the active attention of those of us engaged
in our own wealth creation and enjoying our own freedoms.
I do indulge in universal utilitarianism, however, and think
that freedom leads to it. The actual number of people torturing
animals, being completely unreasonable about how their children
are raised, or intentionally creating simulated being in order
to make their lives miserable will be vanishingly small. The
costs to progress by suppressing liberty will be far greater.
Dave again:
>> [Imagine] your neighbor engaged in any kind of activity whatsoever
>> behind his or her own closed doors that doesn't cause harm to
>> anyone but himself.
> That I've got no problem with. But if my neighbor is stocking
> his fridge with kids from the next subdivision, that *is* a
> problem that demands my attention.
What about the parents or guardians of those kids? Are you saying
with or without their permission? Your question answers itself.
and Hal:
> Freedom does not grant parents carte blanche to harm defenseless
> individuals.
If you say so (sarcasm). It's just as much a non-sequiter to
say that freedom does or does not give carte blanche to any
number of activities one could mention, and you'll find yourself
arguing with many over whether freedom includes raising children
to be illiterate or without speech. This distorts the basic
idea enormously.
> It does not give them the right to create infants who are likely
> to be damaged.
As I said to Dave above, why should damaged people be put down
so completely that you don't even want them to exist? But that's
a moral aside. The real question, again, whether you believe
that you and the majority should use force to get your way in
these cases that affect no existing part of the economic
communities, i.e., citizens.
> With current technology, even supporters of freedom and
> individual autonomy are justified in opposing efforts of
> others to create human clones.
"opposing"? Yeah, right. Proper translation: me and the
rest of the boys are gonna go in there and stop this, and
woe to anyone who gets in our way.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:45 MST