I am of the belief that as human (adults), we pretty much know the
difference between a moral right and wrong. It is only through the
effectiveness of our communication channels and the language we use that
affects the quality of the meme being spread. Over the ages there have been
many philosophers and ethicists that have developed models of ethics on how
we should live. At this point in time, I think that there is now a general
model of ethics that is good enough to live by, and some of the finer
details can be resolved after further thought and discussion without tearing
apart the fabric of everyone's general ethical model.
I'm a big fan of some of these very loosely classified self-help people. In
particular, I think it was Dr Wayne Dwyer in one of his PBS specials
suggested that a person's reason for being is for life, love and legacy.
Life is basic survival and health. Love is giving or helping others. Legacy
is effectively teaching others to continue with your ethical model, i.e.
life, love and legacy again.
I truly think anthropomorphism has been given a bad rap because we focus on
the bad self-destructive side of humanity and apply it to a computer model.
For a computer system, or any intelligent system, life means
self-preservation, love means service and co-operation preferably mutual,
and legacy involves self-replication and evolutionary re-design of ones self
which may or may not involve terminating a system that is not worth the
effort to maintain its own life.
I really think that when talking about morality, it would be a good idea to
base it off the current "good enough" sense of morality that we all know
about. The three L's I briefly described get my vote.
cheers,
Simon
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
