Danger as ive described before, is an external force, perhaps the most useful development conscioussness imbues us with, is the ability to concieve of danger. When we engage in the project of staying safe (a project that is ascertained by the asthetical sensiblity). And now once most of us agree it is beautiful to eliminate a certain degree of danger, then we can engage in Kant's imperatives, this I believe is the most beautiful moral theory that gives us the hardest and most useful universal lines which we should not cross, but let us not forget tht it was first precipitated by our motive, the tools themselves are not the task, as useful as tool looks to accomplish a task, do not confuse the project generator (the creator), with the project itself (the invention or mental structure), there are less hard moral views which one might find just as compelling because they appeal to other elements apart from rationality.
I think it valid to assess danger into classes, there is personal danger, and system threatening dangers. A certain level of personal danger, ie. Things that prejuidice individuals, i think this is acceptable to some extent, but anything that threatens to collective system entirely is certainly too extreme to tolerate, it threatens to negate all the beauty we have achieved thus far, if cannot afford to play with this danger, so we would reach a more beautiful state by removing it
I think it valid to assess danger into classes, there is personal danger, and system threatening dangers. A certain level of personal danger, ie. Things that prejuidice individuals, i think this is acceptable to some extent, but anything that threatens to collective system entirely is certainly too extreme to tolerate, it threatens to negate all the beauty we have achieved thus far, if cannot afford to play with this danger, so we would reach a more beautiful state by removing it
This was a response I gave to an assertion suggesting racism might be justified as a valid perspective, here was my answer:::
ReplyDeleteIts hard to get into my groove of thinking, I would like you to be slightly more cogent so I can properly evaluate your claims, I see interesting idea's but I cant appraise them until I see a fuller elucidation. Could you try put your views in the form of a tentative argument, where you can appeal to the attainment of greater beauty, truth and freedom.
I think the elimination of gene's is conceivably okay, if we can be fully consciouses of all the consequences of doing so- this is very hard to do, maybe impossible, i cant think that far ahead, but I would argue, we should focus on creating new more beautiful genes, maybe increase our chromosome, rather than eliminate existing genes, least we impoverish ourselves due to acting in a state of incomplete knowledge/ partial ignorance. If you read my posts on genes that might help too I think, but having more genetic variety available is always good I think, it shows how rich we are as a species to some extent, of course if this isn't sustainable we will just be shooting ourselves in the foot and that concern should trump the former I mention.
I think my mode of thought has the potential of giving some good answers in the field of bio-ethics, but not until we have more knowledge in the field, or until we feel absolutely confident we should act. Confidence is form of asthetic evaluation. Sorry I could go on forever, and i realize what i write is to some extent incomplete, but thus is the nature of epistemological pluralism, so I guess Ill end it here.