Self-Awareness, Morality, Elephants, and the Prime Directive

Jan 31, 2012 09:54

This morning, jaylake posted a link to a Centauri Dreams blog entry that discusses the philosophy of Star Trek's Prime Directive and then extrapolates more nuanced principles that might be more effective, more practical, and more ethical than the broad concepts that Trek put forth. (Go read it; I'll wait. It's fascinating ( Read more... )

animals, science, essays, deep thoughts

Leave a comment

e_bourne February 1 2012, 02:52:27 UTC
Its an interesting question -- One of the things that I would expect to accompany a legal document is the definition of terms. What do you mean by "intelligence"? What is a "person"? How are morals defined?

Without that, it's a crap shoot. One person's intelligent elephant is another person's dinner. A bee hive might be a "person" whereas an individual bee might not. And morality -- we can't even figure out what's moral from human standpoints, never mind species standpoints. What's the definition of that? The notion of preserving one species at the cost of a burgeoning new species makes me queasy. How do you determine the moral judgment there?

It's worth a valiant effort because without the struggle no end will ever be found. But yes, we have aliens here on Earth we treat terribly. And how does one reconcile that with our evolutionary ancestry? (No way I'm going vegetarian, my health wouldn't stand for it). Soon perhaps we'll have vat-meat which will keep us all pure.

I don't agree that we'll do what the worst of us will get away with. Things do get better. We are not what we once were, and outliers do not prove the rule. Which is not to say we are the best we can become, either. A long way from it. But we do improve. Or so I like to think.

Reply

Outliers do not prove the rule the_same_andrew February 1 2012, 05:52:33 UTC
You're right that outliers don't prove the rule, but they do get away with some appalling things.

Does humanity allow (or tacitly accept, or at least abet) unspeakable acts of cruelty against the defenceless Other? Well, we do, in the sense that some of us keep getting away with it, time after time.

We'll rise higher as a people, but I'm afraid that this will increase the domain throughout which some of us will get away with ever-more-appalling behaviour. Now, I take this as an imperative for the good among us to be always vigilant against evil and cruelty and deception-- but there are as many who'd take it as a licence in the opposite direction.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up