4 ms·

But look at the form of the statement quoted. To paraphrase, 'I disagree with this idea, therefore any proponent of it is a bad person'. The underlying assumpt

But look at the form of the statement quoted. To paraphrase, 'I disagree with this idea, therefore any proponent of it is a bad person'. The underlying assumption (or one of many) is that all perspectives have moral judgements attached, and the offended party is the sole arbiter of that judgement. In other words, it's one thing to question progress, it's another thing to say 'I disagree with this form of progress, therefore the person working towards it is evil'. Judge action all you want, but assume good intent absent concrete evidence to the contrary.

spenczar5 9y ago
I don't read it that way. I read it as: - Extending human lifespan harms the environment. - Harming the environment is ethically wrong. (this is elided) - Therefore, Extending human lifespans is ethically wrong. This is muddy thinking and takes a great leap when it ignores the ethical _benefits_ of extending human lifespans, but I don't think it is indefensible.
- lutorm 9y ago
  No, the issue is not that extending human lifespans is ethically wrong (it may or may not be, but that's an opinion about research.) It's claiming that people working on such research are unethical people. A very basic part about good-faith discussions is to discuss the topic at hand and not the people having the discussion.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    Many universities ban weapons research on ethical grounds. Researchers are responsible for what they work on just like implementers are (though the nuances are different).
  - spenczar5 9y ago
    Huh, I don't see the difference really here. If extending human lifespans is wrong (I think you and I agree that's not the point we want to argue), then doesn't that mean working to extend human lifespans is ethically wrong? I think the conclusion of your line of argument is that you can never say a particular person is unethical. I don't think I like that consequence - it absolves anyone of guilt for anything. In an extreme case, how about this: "Stealing thing is wrong. Therefore, thieves are unethical people." Seems clearly reasonable to me.

spenczar5 9y ago

I don't read it that way. I read it as: - Extending human lifespan harms the environment. - Harming the environment is ethically wrong. (this is elided) - Therefore, Extending human lifespans is ethically wrong. This is muddy thinking and takes a great leap when it ignores the ethical _benefits_ of extending human lifespans, but I don't think it is indefensible.

lutorm 9y ago
No, the issue is not that extending human lifespans is ethically wrong (it may or may not be, but that's an opinion about research.) It's claiming that people working on such research are unethical people. A very basic part about good-faith discussions is to discuss the topic at hand and not the people having the discussion.
- rtpg 9y ago
  Many universities ban weapons research on ethical grounds. Researchers are responsible for what they work on just like implementers are (though the nuances are different).
- spenczar5 9y ago
  Huh, I don't see the difference really here. If extending human lifespans is wrong (I think you and I agree that's not the point we want to argue), then doesn't that mean working to extend human lifespans is ethically wrong? I think the conclusion of your line of argument is that you can never say a particular person is unethical. I don't think I like that consequence - it absolves anyone of guilt for anything. In an extreme case, how about this: "Stealing thing is wrong. Therefore, thieves are unethical people." Seems clearly reasonable to me.