From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 18:55:02 MDT
--> Me
> > Can we get some arbitration here from the guy that wrote the thing? :)
--> Lee Corbin
> As much as I treasure Max More's opinions and inputs, on the
> question of the subjectivity of the Extropian Principles, he
> can only have an opinion.
Now you're getting the hang of this :)
Here's an open question for the group; is it possible to objectively measure
the subjectivity or lack of subjectivity of something? One would hope that
the answer is sort of yes -- since otherwise it seems to me we cannot
determine what scientific objective reality consists of. I suspect that
measurement of degrees of subjectivity are subjective, but that one can
objectively determine whether or not something is objective.
Anyway. Enough with the freshmen logic/ethics/philosophy stuff. This will be
my last e-mail on the topic; I've chewed up waaay too much time writing them
over the past two days.
--> Lee Corbin
> Rafal writes
>
> ### Let me first say that I agree with the rest of your
> ### post, about the ultimate lack of a compelling ethics,
> ### a set of rules that would impose itself on all minds
> ### like the rules of mathematics, by virtue of being
> ### undeniably true and unavoidable.
>
> Yes, I concur. Fundamentally, it's a question of respect.
> Just how do you regard people who reject the Extropian
> Principles?
>
> (a) they are as wrong as if they were to claim 2 + 2 = 5,
> or to claim that the Earth is hollow, or to claim that
> telepathy has been shown to work.
> (b) they are *unreasonable*, in the sense that they
> have failed to reason correctly. They should be
> regarded as wayward students, who may one day
> surmount the various logical and scientific errors
> that plague them.
> (c) they have differing values from us, but values that
> can be objectively shown to resemble the values of
> backward-looking, religious, atavistic, authoritarian,
> nihilistic, or harmful systems of the past.
> (d) they have differing values with which we strongly
> disagree and which many of us properly and often
> harshly condemn.
> (e) they have differing values from us, to which they
> are just as entitled as we are to ours, and there
> are no objective criteria against which their values
> and ours can be compared.
>
> So what choice most closely fits your take? Thanks to
> everyone who answers, not just Dr. Smigrodzki.
Definately (e) in principal, tending towards (b)/(c) when they make my life
difficult, depending on their attitudes and reasoning.
--> Lee Corbin
> > [Max More]
> > Because of extremely difficult to resolve arguments over the
> objectivity of
> > values, I have *not* presented the Principles as universal values for
> > everyone. I *do* believe that these principles *work* for
> everyone, but I
> > am not certain that everyone is rationally compelled to accept any
> > particular basic values. I leave that as an open question. Even
> for many
> > who see values as ultimately subjective (why live rather than not...) I
> > know that the Principles make good sense as a codification --
> so long as
> > those persons ultimately value life.
>
> That bears repeating.
Why live rather than not indeed. Those of us who have wrestled with that
question directly tend to have interesting answers. But we all make our own
choices, deciding on the why of it for ourselves (even if that is merely to
adopt an existing prefab reason).
I'm pretty sure than no-one is rationally compelled to accept any values or
memeplexes. Of course if anyone wants to point me to a good refutation...
> > On the other hand, I do not present [the Extropian
> > Principles] as universally compelling values. I
> > leave that option open -- it's just not part of
> > the Principles themselves. That question is a
> > meta-ethical question, whereas you can think of
> > the Extropian Principles as an ethical (and
> > existential) framework.
>
> That should go some distance in helping to resolve
> some current conflicts.
So: what do we all think of metaethical issues? Why live, adopt ethics,
fight the fight?
--> Harvey Newstrom
> On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 10:29 am, Reason wrote:
> > Which would seem to support my thesis. The principals are written in the
> > form of "this is what we want" or "this is what we desire." You can
> > rationalize the principals all you like, (and doing so is good, of
> > course,
> > IMHO), but you cannot claim that they are objectively good.
>
> OK. This does seem to be the exact point of our disagreement.
>
> I view the Principles as being a description of objective trends of
> humanity and best practices devised by humanity. I derive my beliefs as
> an Extropian from the Principles because they are objective and accurate
> or best. Some Principles are objectively real trends such as boundless
> expansion, while others are best-practices devised by humans, such as
> open society, that are objectively good and can be demonstrated to work
> better.
They're that; they're also a set of desires as I said before: the expressed
(subjective) desire to propagate, achieve, promulgate these trends and
practices. The (subjective) valuation of these trends and practices at a
higher level than other trends and practices. Certain yardsticks are
(subjectively) viewed as being better than others.
> You seem to view the Principles as being a wish-list of goals that a
> bunch of Extropians put together. You think Extropians defined their
> beliefs in terms of what they wanted, and then wrote the Principles as a
> manifesto supporting their goals. You do not think they were derived
> from objectively observed data or that they can be demonstrated to be
> superior to other methods. Reality or history may or may not reflect
> what the Extropian Principles wish to be true. The methods described,
> such as open society or rational thought, are merely our preferred modes
> but are not objectively superior to any other arbitrarily chosen modes.
I had the view of one guy sitting down to draft it and then bouncing it off
his friends, actually. Then accumulating people who though the same way. But
anyway, I'm happy to accept whatever genesis is provided by those in the
know for the construction of the principals; that isn't the issue. I'm happy
to accept, since I'm scientifically minded, that the principals rest on
sound scientific data.
Now: the preference for using the principals, the preference expressed in
the principals for a given trend, practice or implicit yardstick for
measuring said trends and practices: those are subjective human valuations.
> Is this accurate? We seem to be diametrically opposed:
>
> Reality --> Principles --> Beliefs --> Me
>
> You --> Beliefs --> Principles --> Reality
No. I'm firmly in the camp of reality-based scientific and philosophical
principals driving life choices. The only points I'm claiming to be
arbitrary and subjective are to do with human opinions, feelings,
valuations, "facts" (second sort), etc.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:25 MST