[93230] in Cypherpunks
RE: rant on the morality of confidentiality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Wayne Radinsky)
Thu Jan 15 00:35:57 1998
From: Wayne Radinsky <waynerad@oz.net>
To: "'Blanc'" <blancw@cnw.com>
Cc: "'cypherpunks@cyberpass.net'" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>,
"'tcmay@got.net'" <tcmay@got.net>,
"'vznuri@netcom5.netcom.com'" <vznuri@netcom5.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:32:15 -0800
Reply-To: Wayne Radinsky <waynerad@oz.net>
The reason morality is impossible to nail down is because it does not =
exist al all in any absolute sense, at least as far as science is =
concerned. If you declare, for example, that "murder" is "wrong" you =
are always left with dilemmas, such as whether soldiers who kill during =
a war are doing something "wrong".
According to the principle of natural selection, all people, including =
scientists, exist purely to maximize their own inclusive genetic =
fitness. "Fit" means that an organism is well adapted to it's =
environment, so "maximizing inclusive genetic fitness" means having the =
maximum number of offspring which are themselves fit.
Keep in mind that all natural selection really does is decide which =
genes are allowed to propagate, and since genes are just digital =
information stored on DNA molecules, what we call "life" is really just =
a complex interaction of matter/energy which determines which bits of =
information continue to exist over time.
The underlying reason people benefit by promoting themselves as moral =
people, in general, is because of the benefit of what evolutionary =
psychologists call reciprocal altruism. With reciprocal altruism, both =
parties benefit if they are in a non-zero-sum situation. Because most =
situations are non-zero-sum and the benefits are so great, everyone has =
a stake in promoting themselves as a good reciprocal altruist, in other =
words, a good, trustworthy, moral person. This is how natural selection =
explains the existence of the concept of "morality".
So it is a myth that scientists live to find deep truths or to benefit =
humanity. They may do those things, but their real goal is maximizing =
their own inclusive fitness. However, it may profit them if everyone =
else believes they live to find deep truths or to benefit humanity. =
Natural selection has created human beings, and the concept of =
"morality" in our minds, because moral justifications benefit the people =
promoting them -- which ultimately benefits their genes.
The only way out is to believe in the afterlife, and religion, and that =
life has meaning beyond the genes and material world. Doing so doesn't =
make moral dilemmas go away, and you never know, people may just be =
believing such things for the benefit of genes, after all natural =
selection has no real concern for "truth".
Wayne
----------
From: Blanc[SMTP:blancw@cnw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 1998 7:20 PM
To: waynerad@oz.net
Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality=20
>X-Authentication-Warning: netcom5.netcom.com: vznuri@localhost didn't =
use
HELO protocol
>To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
>cc: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>, Blanc <blancw@cnw.com>,
> cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, vznuri@netcom5.netcom.com
>Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality=20
>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 98 15:07:48 -0800
>From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
>
>timmy predictably states the case for moral relativism.
>
>>I think it's an error to use "moral" or "immoral" as a modifier for
"science."
>>
>>It's a matter of opinion/ethics as to whether some science is "for =
immoral
>>purposes," but calling something "immoral science" is fraught with =
trouble.
>>
>>To a vegetarian, any science related to meat production is "immoral
science."
>
>well, the concept of "criminality" is likewise fraught with trouble.
>what is criminal and what is not? obviously some definitions stretch
>the limits. is a jaywalker a criminal? a political dissident? ok, how
>about an axe murderer? similarly, I think your predictable opposition
>to the use of the word "immoral" is specious.=20
>
>moreover, I think such a misunderstanding, or worldview, is=20
>detrimental to human welfare in general. I think all the evil=20
>government scientists I've been referring to recently would
>very much agree with you on rejecting ideas of "morality" and=20
>"conscience". a person does not need an infallible definition
>of morality to navigate the world, imho, but a person that has
>none, or rejects any such attempt, is part of the problem and
>not part of the solution, imho.
>
>>Personally, I don't view scientific experiments done on condemned =
prisoners
>>as immoral. If a human being has already been sentenced to die, and, =
for
>>example, accepts some payment (perhaps for his heirs) to die in some
>>scientifically interesting way, why call it "immoral"?
>
>oh, well, lets see, you have a very obvious glitch in your reasoning.
>you presume the prisoner gives his permssion. now lets see, assume he
>doesn't? just to pop a hypothetical example out of the blue,
>say someone named timmy gets arrested for gun violations and
>gets thrown in jail temporarily. would it be immoral for the
>police to remove his organs? perhaps without his permission?=20
>perhaps without anesthetic? if not immoral, what? criminal? criminal
>but not immoral?
>
>>While I would not have, I hope, worked in a Nazi death camp, the =
science
>>obtained is undeniably real science, some of the only solid data we =
have on
>>freezing humans, on exposing them to pathogens, etc.
>
>I've seen your defense of these experiments before-- its a topic of
>interest for you for obvious reasons; it presents a possible glitch
>in your moral relativism.
>
>I don't think BWs claim that there is a difference between=20
>immoral scientists and immoral science. immoral science is what
>immoral scientists practice. what's the point? my personal point
>is that if we had a culture of people who were concerned about
>morality, perhaps we would have institutions that reflect
>integrity.=20
>
>contrary to most here, I believe that our institutions
>are correctly representing the people of a country-- their thoughts,
>their motivations, their concerns. its key to the philosophy of
>disenfranchisement, apathy, and nihilism (and anarchism) to=20
>claim that the government is not representing the people. what
>is the evidence for this?=20
>
>because the government is corrupt,
>the people are not necessarily corrupt? because the government
>is greedy and full of powermongers, the population is not
>full of greedy powermongers who would do the same given the
>opportunity? government is a mirror into our psyches that
>few people care to gaze on, precisely because we are not
>the fairest of them all.
>
>we've got the government we deserve, and it reflects our
>own pathologies within our psyches back to us. it reflects our
>laziness and apathy, our cynicism, our alienation, our=20
>withdrawal. and it takes a person who can master themselves=20
>to face up to this simple truth-- something that most everone of our=20
>country has failed to admit.
>
>when we begin to ask questions like "what is integrity" and
>"what is moral" and come up with serious answers, our world
>will improve. it will degenerate otherwise, and has given us
>a tremendous existence proof of that fact to date.
>
>but just remember, again, that I'm aimlessly ranting here, and there's =
no
>need to take any of this seriously <g>
>
>
>
