From: Mikko Särelä (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Feb 16 2004 - 00:16:54 MST
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> OK -- well -- you may be right that such an ethical system exists ... and I
> agree that a quest for such a system is a noble and valuable quest ... but
> in the meantime we require some other ethical system to guide our lives, no?
> Or do you posit that the quest for this rational ethical system should be
> the primary quest of our lives, until we find it? I don't think I'm willing
> to accept that ;-)
I believe that universe exists that we can understand the underlying
fabric of our reality. I also know that our current theories are not
exactly right, since we are missing one final clue (at least). This
doesn't mean that we cannot use the knowledge we have of physics nowadays
to help us solve problems in our lives.
Similarly, you don't start by using all your energy to creating the
perfect moral system. Start with whatever is currently the best theory,
and then improve when problems are found.
Remember that this conversation started for me, when someone claimed that
the only criteria we can use to test moral theories is the criteria of
consistency. I claimed and still claim that there are other criteria such
as whether the moral system is self defeating by its own lights.
-- Mikko Särelä Emperor Bonaparte: "Where does God fit into your system?" Pièrre Simon Laplace: "Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT