From: Daniel Radetsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 23 2006 - 17:35:57 MST
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:51:21 -0500
Jeff Medina <email@example.com> wrote:
> The second reply is a variation on the first, but requires more
> comment. Specifically, it holds up the *current* level of autonomy,
> intelligence, or rationality most humans exhibit as sacrosanct...To claim
> the current level of rationality found in humans is the delineator for when
> we or any other higher beings should respect another being's choices/autonomy
> is to place yourself squarely in the Fukuyama/Kass camp of error.
Is to claim that SOME level of rationality is the delineator an error? If so,
why? In other words, I claim that there is a point somewhere such that if I am
more rational than it, I should have my decisions respected (this may vary from
area to area). This does not at all require that I believe that there is
something special about human-level rationality.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 24 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT