Nick, I'm still curious about your answer to a challenge you raised. You wrote,
As one of my graduate students used to [cheerfully] say, "but Nick, if youdon't have an inner life, it's ok to kill you, right?" Now, my wisest response to this line of argument would be to go all technocratic and to deny that I have any ethical dog in this fight at all. One can, after all, be a moral naturalist and assert that reasoning and argument only come into play when people are trying to violate their ethical impulses and that, on the whole, people are designed by nature so that they don't kill each other. Just as I don't think it makes any difference whether you believe in evolution or creation whether you are a good person, I don't think it makes any difference to being a good person whether you believe others have an inner life or not. Thus, I escape the argument by asserting that it has no MORAL consequences. I reassure Russ that my absence of an inner life does not make me dangerous, and, once he takes that reassurance seriously, he doesn't have to kill me. Peace is re-established. It seems to m that you didn't answer your graduate student's challenge. Is it ok to kill you? The implication of the challenge is that murder is a moral issue only when it is performed on a being with an inner life. Simply terminating the functioning of something (like a robot) is not murder. We use the term "murder" when the thing murdered is understood to have an inner life like our own. It may be as you say that we have evolved to have that perspective. (I think that's correct.) But so what? Do you have any (moral) grounds for objecting to your graduate student killing you? Given your statement "it has no MORAL consequences" apparently your answer is that from your perspective there is no moral reason for him/her not to kill you. Is that correct? -- Russ On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Nicholas Thompson < nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > I have long felt that the Santa Fe group should find a way to gnash > families. > > Let's do it. > > N > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > > Date: 6/19/2009 11:11:50 PM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nick and dishonest behavior > > > > Douglas Roberts wrote: > > > Well, that certainly cleared things up! > > And the most fascinating thing (for the benefit for those who know > > neither I nor Doug personally) is that this was a wonderful illumination > > for me. Nothing conclusive, but nicely expansive (for me)... > > > > I think it is time for Doug and I (and our spouses) to break bread, > > share libations, and maybe even some fresh-roast, fresh ground coffee > > late into the night! ( I love/hate being a wide-awake drunk for 2 days > > straight thanks to Doug's killer Scotch followed by excellent > > Fresh-Fresh-Fresh Espresso) > > > > > > - Steve > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
