= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelBishop comments on Homogeneity vs. heterogeneity (or, What kind of sex is most moral?) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (78)
Tim, I wish our exchange could be a bit more amiable, but you caused me to read up on some stuff that may be changing the way I think. For this I thank you.
I've already acknowledged that "Appeal to Nature" is a more precise concept and that is what I might be inclined to reference in similar situations in the future. I'm even willing to question that practice. If you have time to provide some preferred concepts/vocabulary, that would be great.
Do you agree that improving one's genetic fitness should be a terminal value for people? Do you agree that Phil seemed to imply that?
People can choose their own values. Inclusive genetic fitness seems like a reasonable-enough maximand to me - because it is mine - see:
http://alife.co.uk/essays/nietzscheanism/
Phil claimed that genetic fitness mattered for ethics - which it probably does. For example, the Shakers believed that everyone should be celibate - and now there aren't any of them around any more.
There would still be Shakers around if they had been able to keep up the practice of adopting children indefinitely. According to Wikipedia, that only stopped working when adoption became the province of the state. Wikipedia also says that there are still four Shakers today and people may join them if they like.