Issues in Ethics | Page 5

that, when we wish to discuss the nature of "good" and
"right", the Laws of Nature serve as the privileged frame of reference.
They delimit and constrain the set of possible states - pragmatic and
moral. No moral, aesthetic, or hedonistic principle or rule can defy,
negate, suspend, or ignore the Laws of Nature. They are the source of
everything that is "good" and "right". Thus, the language we use to
describe all instances of "good" and "right" is "natural". Human choice,
of course, does not exist as far as the Laws of Nature go.
Nature is beautiful - symmetric, elegant, and parsimonious. Aesthetic
values and aesthetic judgements of "good" (i.e., beautiful) and "right"
rely heavily on the attributes of Nature. Inevitably, they employ the
same vocabulary and syntax. Aesthetics is the bridge between the
functional or correct "good" and "right" - and the hedonistic "good" and
"right".
Aesthetics is the first order of the interaction between the WORLD and
the MIND. Here, choice is very limited. It is not possible to "choose"
something to be beautiful. It is either beautiful or it is not (regardless of
the objective or subjective source of the aesthetic judgement).
The hedonist is primarily concerned with the maximization of his
happiness and pleasure. But such outcomes can be secured only by
adhering to aesthetic values, by rendering aesthetic judgements, and by
maintaining aesthetic standards. The hedonist craves beauty, pursues
perfection, avoids the ugly - in short, the hedonist is an aesthete.
Hedonism is the application of aesthetic rules, principles, values, and
judgements in a social and cultural setting. Hedonism is aesthetics in
context - the context of being human in a society of humans. The
hedonist has a limited, binary, choice - between being a hedonist and
not being one.
From here it is one step to morality. The principle of individual utility
which underlies hedonism can be easily generalized to encompass
Humanity as a whole. The social and cultural context is indispensable -
there cannot be meaningful morality outside society. A Robinson
Crusoe - at least until he spotted Friday - is an a-moral creature. Thus,
morality is generalized hedonism with the added (and crucial) feature
of free will and (for all practical purposes) unrestricted choice. It is
what makes us really human.

On Being Human
By: Dr. Sam Vaknin
Also Read:
The Aborted Contract
In Our Own Image - Cloning
Turing Machines and Universes
Death and the Question of Identity
The Shattered Identity

Are we human because of unique traits and attributes not shared with
either animal or machine? The definition of "human" is circular: we are
human by virtue of the properties that make us human (i.e., distinct
from animal and machine). It is a definition by negation: that which
separates us from animal and machine is our "human-ness".
We are human because we are not animal, nor machine. But such
thinking has been rendered progressively less tenable by the advent of
evolutionary and neo-evolutionary theories which postulate a
continuum in nature between animals and Man.
Our uniqueness is partly quantitative and partly qualitative. Many
animals are capable of cognitively manipulating symbols and using
tools. Few are as adept at it as we are. These are easily quantifiable
differences - two of many.
Qualitative differences are a lot more difficult to substantiate. In the
absence of privileged access to the animal mind, we cannot and don't
know if animals feel guilt, for instance. Do animals love? Do they have
a concept of sin? What about object permanence, meaning, reasoning,
self-awareness, critical thinking? Individuality? Emotions? Empathy?
Is artificial intelligence (AI) an oxymoron? A machine that passes the
Turing Test may well be described as "human". But is it really? And if
it is not - why isn't it?
Literature is full of stories of monsters - Frankenstein, the Golem - and
androids or anthropoids. Their behavior is more "humane" than the
humans around them. This, perhaps, is what really sets humans apart:
their behavioral unpredictability. It is yielded by the interaction
between Mankind's underlying immutable genetically-determined
nature - and Man's kaleidoscopically changing environments.
The Constructivists even claim that Human Nature is a mere cultural

artefact. Sociobiologists, on the other hand, are determinists. They
believe that human nature - being the inevitable and inexorable
outcome of our bestial ancestry - cannot be the subject of moral
judgment.
An improved Turing Test would look for baffling and erratic patterns
of misbehavior to identify humans. Pico della Mirandola wrote in
"Oration on the Dignity of Man" that Man was born without a form and
can mould and transform - actually, create - himself at will. Existence
precedes essence, said the Existentialists centuries later.
The one defining human characteristic may be our awareness of our
mortality. The automatically triggered, "fight or flight", battle for
survival is common