I will have to think about this and hopefully respond when I am more 'with it' than I am at the moment. Still nursing my morning pot of tea....

To me, though, just as an initial cast into the last ripples, morality is a hedge against chaos. Our physical universe is mirrored by that very rational immorality that you introduce here, the baseline. While it might serve the immediate and myopic requirement to reproducing, the biological imperative, it doesn't generally invite the necessary co-operation with likeminded people. It is divisive, self-serving abjectly in a way that co-operation isn't....quite so...….Hobbesian.

Cooperation is self-serving though. It wouldn't have evolved and still be around otherwise. It's very widespread in nature, because it's a great survival strategy.

Agreed, and why I stated that co-operation isn't quite as Hobbesian as its alternative. I don't really believe in altruism, and no 'behaviourist' should.

Survival of the species is achieved by progressive adaption that prescribed targeting of immortality as such can only hinder. Rationalists know the means they choose as such.

I need time to go through the entire document, but I initially don't know why morality is mixed into the idea of immortality. A baseline morality seem much more likely to revolve around well-being, of the self and others (without seperation). From there, moral principles can be set and evolve according to better understanding of the human condition.

I can see how immortality may give us perspectives on moral values that we fail to see in our mortality.

Cooperation however seem only needed when the individual needs the group. If the individual can survive without the group, they tend to isolate more from the group. There are some good inputs found in the Netflix show Altered Carbon on this subject. An immortal individual who gains power and wealth, would be almost infinitely powerful and wealthy the longer that individual lives. And the impact of living forever might also create apathy against other people, since losses have happened more times than one lifetime and the impact of personal losses might loose it's strength the more it's experienced. This detachement from humanity may be the greatest threat to our humanity than anything else immortality could give us.

Another thing about immortality is that most of our culture, expressions, art, way of life, revolves around life and death. If you take away death, then our entire culture would change and what is important, valued, pursued etc. would become totally different.

Therefor it's hard to see any morality formed by immortality, if that morality has parameters set by what we value today as mortals in our culture. If the moral values change with immortality, we cannot predict what morals becomes because of it.

However, this might have been off topic, since I've not yet read the full document, so I'm not arguing against anything said.

After 1 para, was tying my self in knots to understand the language and direction. Once I re read it (very slowly and carefully, bit dim), I started to get annoyed, happy and confused at the same time. Would love if - (constructive criticism part) your could summarise or otherwise define the goal of what you need from us? Would it be feelings, arguments for and against, agreement? Or am I being dum? Maybe, sorry if so. ;-)

I think the suggested moral framework, like many moral frameworks, can be accommodated within the broad church of Consequentialism. It distinguishes itself from another variant of consequentialism - utilitarianism, with its various subdivisions (eg hedonic vs preference, negative-only vs two-sided) - by focusing on quantity rather than quality of life of the chosen subset of life forms - 'our kind'.

I can imagine such an approach would be appealing to some, while to others it may be repellant (especially to antinatalists!). Certainly some interpretations of Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism seem to take an approach similar to that, with their condemnation of actions that reduce the likelihood of procreation. Another moral theory that seems to have a similar focus - despite being very uneasy bedfellows with the two religions named - is Ayn Rand's Objectivism, which appears to take as axiomatic that survival is the highest good.

This:-

The term “our kind” is completely arbitrary — Christopher A

Contradicts this:-

act in a way that maximizes their probability of survival — Christopher A

"Our kind" is circumscribe by the possibility of communication and co-ordination, which is limited by biology and culture, which is why "diversity" isn't a strength, but a weakness.

IOW, ideally, you need a large degree of homogeneity plus a little bit of diversity to keep things jogging along.

Other than that, I like the idea of using immortality as a benchmark of sorts, but you'd have to extricate it from that politically correct rubbish for it to make sense.

Thank you all for these first comments. I saw them all come in at once (probably stuck for approval), so I'll do my best to address all points made. I know that in complex topics it's easy to have multiple parallel discussions in a single thread, so I'll do my best to keep it together.

@gloaming: Agreed 100%

@Christoffer: I think that you'll find answers to all the points you raised in the document. It even contains a specific example on how personal immortality is impossible without conscious entities to support it. For the definition of 'our kind' as 'myself' I'm not talking about fictional inability to die or get killed, but life extension ad infitinum, which is practically impossible without others. Survival ad infinitum of 'our kind' is set as a moral 'ought' replacing happiness etc. Some of the expected prescriptions are really nothing new, others are uncomfortable and some very contentious. I think you'll provide some great feedback if you manage to devote the time to read the whole thing. The point about the change in culture is very significant and I probably need to add something about it. Cultures are quite dynamic of course, but actual personal immortality would definitely change quite a bit. I do need to say though that I don't expect 'immortality for all' ever, which is something I mention in the text.

@texaskersh: I really appreciate the effort. The best possible outcome for me would be for someone to find the arguments so intriguing that s/he would be willing to improve and co-author it. Ideally that person would be interesting on helping make a decent paper or book out of it. In the less ideal situation, feedback like what you found especially dense and incomprehensible, or what annoyed you would be invaluable. These thoughts have been with me for several years now, I tried several formats but this is the one I feel more comfortable with, due to my scientific and engineering background. I basically want to get it to be as tight as possible, cater to any glaring omissions or contradictions, put it out there and go on with the next project, whatever that may be.

@andrewk: Spot on on the consequentialist point, it's not like there's much to be said at that level of abstraction. If you go through Appendix A you'll see that I describe normative moral theories in more or less consequentialist terms, though I am careful about leaving room for deontological prescriptions, as I'm describing moral theories in general. Consequentialism is definitely more suited to synergies with science, which I consider indispensable for any rational consensus. However, Ayn Rand would cringe at most of what I wrote though, especially the parts about limiting individual wealth and power. I am diametrically opposed to her views and everything she stood for. wrt to prescriptions coming from religious dogma, of course they can't all be wrong. But I strongly argue against senseless addition of more mouths to feed, without the sustainable policies that will support those numbers. Furthermore, the very title of the text is "the end of dogma" and I don't hide my atheism or disgust at dogma (religious or other)

@gurugeorge: You'll need to read at least "Versions of 'our kind'" in Chapter 3 to see that there's no contradiction and Chapter 2 on why I think you're dead wrong regarding homogeneity. Diversity is not PC crap, it's an absolute must for complex, robust systems. I can give countless examples and I will add a lot more to the text, if you think that the point is not covered adequately.

You'll need to read at least "Versions of 'our kind'" in Chapter 3 to see that there's no contradiction and Chapter 2 on why I think you're dead wrong regarding homogeneity. — Christopher A

OK, I've read those, I still think you're putting the cart before the horse: you still require a common basis of shared culture and communication before any group focus or group effort can get started, which is why (relative) homogeneity comes first. Of course some degree of diversity is necessary at the margin, but it's only a leaven.

It's the same all the way up and down nature: a thing is a thing, it has boundaries where there's some "mixing", but the bulk of the thing is the thing. A thing that's all mixed isn't a thing.

I completely disagree that the purpose and meaning of all life is immortality. This is absurd.

When 'the thing' = human, no amount of diversity stops it from being 'the thing', the homogeneity you're talking about is in the very definition of 'our kind'. But a thing is not necessarily defined by a single property. Within the big group you want to have 'african Muslims of neighborhood X', 'holocaust deniers', whatever. They make the bigger group stronger actually.

I view all other candidates as absurd myself. Perhaps I'm wrong and you can convince me. Can you suggest an alternative candidate that fits the following criteria?

- Doesn't derive from a characteristic that was necessary for the survival of our species this far. e.g. happiness, pleasure.

- Can't be explained as a fairy tale created to address fear of death* and/or the sense of powerlessness.
* Specific example: Does not include any sense of immortality (immortal souls or merging with an immortal supreme being)

There is no absolute meaning or purpose of human life.
Or to any life.

Moralism is obsolete. All there is is ethics.

Personally I like the ethics of Levinas or Derrida's Forgiveness if only the forgiving of the unforgivable.

There is no absolute meaning or purpose of human life.
Or to any life. — Blue Lux

This is a view, for sure. Not a candidate for widespread consensus though. Tell someone their life is meaningless and they'll invent meaning.

Moralism is obsolete. All there is is ethics. — Blue Lux

I'd like to understand this statement. Can you point me to something available online?

Exactly, meaning is to be created, not adopted. There can be no 'objective' absolute meaning or purpose of human life (both terms are conflated but are not interchangeable what so ever).

I get your point, I'm pretty sure I can remove the few parts on meaning and purpose, which are only meant to support the ought anyway. I wonder though:
- Is the selection of an ethical theory influenced by one's answer to meaning and purpose?
- Do the theories themselves sometimes or always assume some answers on existential questions?
I will need to think a bit about these.

There's another point that's not that important, but I need to consider it as well. Religious dogmata provide answers to both existential and ethical questions, with ordinary people probably not easily distinguishing between them. If the consensus baseline I'm proposing excludes any existential answers, perhaps it will be at a great disadvantage.

I am opposed to a singular purpose and meaning of life as well.

Well, yes. John Mill thought the meaning of life was happiness and so he wrote Utilitarianism.

Yes, they do presuppose to a degree and that is why they are merely ethical theories. But there are always dilemmas that an ethical theory cannot reconcile, and that is because it is not based on an absolute.

If I were to create an ethics I would try to choose somethig proximal and primordial, perhaps like Heidegger, how he bases truth on existence itself, on Dasein. But I would try and minimize the whole subjectivity versus objectivity dualism; and I would try to base an ethics in terms of what existentialism has determined thus far, that the dualisms of subject and object or being and appearance are obsolete.

Well, you could always do an analysis of faith and perhaps use faith in a non-religious non-dogmatic way... But then again that would just be another valuation of objectivity versus subjectivity, which is a huge snare of language in my opinion.

But, if you can substantiate the idea that a will to immortality is primordial, and you can base it is in something that does not have reference to something transpersonal or fatalistic, I think you may be well based in forming an Ethics.

Man, I do appreciate your comments. Right to the point and very elucidating. Indeed the primordial nature of this ought what I've tried to substantiate. Chapter 2 is entirely devoted to this effort. Perhaps I've not done it well enough.

Well if you feel you are onto something then you probably are.
In any case, every ethics is not perfect or infallible.

When 'the thing' = human, no amount of diversity stops it from being 'the thing', — Christopher A

Yes it does, the thinghood of the group is dependent on communication, as I keep saying, and the generic "humanity" qualities aren't fine-grained enough for that. Viable groups have to share some measure of genetic similarity, which leads to some measure of shared culture and communication.

I think you're making a mistake analogous to the mistake that socialists made wrt the economy, you're underestimating and overlooking certain practical realities that rather put a spanner in the works for your theory.

But as I said, other than that, I think your idea has some interest. It's definitely worth exploring, both for its own sake as a possible way of looking at ethics, and for practical reasons (since it's quite feasible that we may actually achieve at least very long life in the not too distant future).