is a peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and edited by IEET Fellow Dr. Russell Blackford. The first two articles of Volume 17 have been published.
...
Complete entry
Posted by
Abolitionist on 02/22 at 09:04 PM
I’ve been writting about the social contract theory and what it would take to make a valid ethical directive on the Abolitionist Society forums for some time. I think that the core premise that all humans have the same desires can be debated and tested scientifically - we don’t have to settle for promoting diversity and libertarianism to the detriment of universal progress.
It’s time we had a debate about what humans really want - can’t we find some universal common ground upon which to base a social contract?
By this statement;
“Changing Assumptions
The social contract grows out of our human nature and is based on rarely-questioned assumptions, including:
2. Humans are motivated by the roughly the same set of values, as part of our shared human nature. Tax codes and other laws make many assumptions about human motives.”
Hibbard dismisses any valid social contract. I’m waiting for him to debate this and have contacted him directly.
Posted by
Abolitionist on 02/22 at 09:28 PM
What makes a social contract valid?
If you propose that;
“However, the technology of mind will give us freedom to choose the motives of machine and enhanced human minds, and we can design them to not to want to circumvent measures to protect others. We can design them to value the well-being of other humans.”
why is this a valid directive?
It must be based upon universal traits and sentient desires.
Liberty isn’t part of a newborn’s vocabulary - this happens when social theories come into play. Newborn’s just try to avoid death and pain and seek pleasure.
If we are talking about a singularitarian attempt to improve lifelong individual happiness - this goes against the self-direction of the individual as individuals cannot predict their own happiness. SEE : ‘stumbling on happiness’. So Libertarianism and Singularitarianism are at fundamental odds.
What really makes us happiest in terms of lifelong individual happiness is not what we would choose due to irrationality and learned mental habits. (How many are seeking brain implants actively in order to reliably improve lifelong individual happiness?)
If a computer is making calculations and ensuring happiness (as singularitarians say will happen eventually) - the ‘liberty of the individual will have to be defined in terms of avoiding suffering rather than catering to the percieved will power.
However, there is no voluntary sufffering or volition. This requires free-will.
IEET Blog