0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What do you mean by ' Universal ' ?
The Repugnant Conclusion (a philosophy paradox)
I describe two mistakes people often make when trying to solve paradoxes like Newcomb's Problem, Sleeping Beauty, and more.
Your idea of ' Universalism " seems very broad, it includes Alot.Approximately 8.7 million species.
Just a small group on a forum, at times, is not able to reach on a consensus or agreement.
I Wonder, how the hell will We All Species ever be able to agree fully.
Perhaps We would have to exclude Aliens.
AGI on the other hand, might Change it's previous Decision half way thru the process of achieving the Goal.
I donno what to say about Species that are Not yet Existing.Good Luck with That!
Besides, what about the Mentally unstable infant orphans in a state of comatose?(Who decides on their behalf)
Imagine conducting an Election...In which All votes have to say' Yes '..& Total number of Voters is Infinite.(voting begins but never ends)
I'm not opposing the Universality ideology, just feel it's a bit Unrealistic, that's all.
ps - Buridan's Asses are for Real!You'll find them braying on dating sites.(hee-haw)
It also includes species not yet existing, aliens, and AGI.
The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population ethics. The last three decades have witnessed an increasing philosophical interest in questions such as ?Is it possible to make the world a better place by creating additional happy people?? and ?Is there a moral obligation to have children??
I'm not sure if we can communicate with unicellular organisms about our common goals. But it's pretty clear that they have instincts to survive and reproduce, which can be reasonably thought as the products of evolutionary process.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 23/05/2023 19:11:46I'm not sure if we can communicate with unicellular organisms about our common goals. But it's pretty clear that they have instincts to survive and reproduce, which can be reasonably thought as the products of evolutionary process.More to the point, most of them regard us either as enemies or food. What moral right do we have to determine their goals, or to assume that they are the same as ours?
Quote from: Zer0 on 24/05/2023 23:32:10Perhaps We would have to exclude Aliens.It's understandable since we haven't found one. But we haven't explored much of observable universe. It's like scooping a spoon of sea water, and declare that fish don't exist because we catch none in the spoon.