From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 00:09:53 MST
Hal writes
> Here's how I would like to solve the question of what ethical system
> is best.
I can see from what follows that by this you mean what
ones survive best, but would this always be the ones
that you personally approved of most?
> Let there be a multitude of communities, each with its
> own moral code. Let people join whatever community they wish,
> which requires them to agree to follow and be bound by that
> community's code. Then let these communities compete. Those
> communities which thrive will be the ones with a moral code which
> is most in accordance with reality.
Yes. I do listen when thoughtful people point out that
however appealing is some idealistic proposal, it may not
be in accordance with *reality*. Groups or individuals
who want to endure must embrace ESS's, or else just opt
out by saying "the world is too ugly and I don't want
to live anymore".
> Now, there are a number of complications with this plan...
> I wrote of communities "competing". is this economic competition?
> Or does it include racing to claim new resources? Even open warfare?
Yes, yes, and yes.
> And where are these communities? Are they towns, cities, countries?
> Are they planets in some kind of galactic civilization? Perhaps
> they are voluntary collectives in some virtual environment, like
> the Polises in Egan's Diaspora?
I think that the correct answers apply generally.
> The goal of this approach is to bypass the question of what ethical
> system is right, by allowing people freedom to make their own
> decisions on this matter.
This is wise for any number of reasons. Your approach
can also be looked upon *itself* as a successful strategy.
The countries in the last two centuries who have adopted
"allowing people freedom" have prospered in comparison
to those that did not, and have become rather superior
in every way.
> In the end, whether this approach or any other is followed, I think
> that we will continue to evolve towards a limited number of systems
> that work. I think my approach gets us there more quickly, while
> giving people the maximum freedom possible.
Your approach here explicitly recognizes that there are
evolutionary processes at work, and most "centrally
planned" or intellectualized systems do not.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:18 MST