The Peer ETI Slice
Just institutions will frame our
ethical deliberation if we conclude that ETI are our peers in rational
intelligence. We might begin by invoking the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule,
sometimes referred to as the ethic of reciprocity, can be found among the
ancients in the Code of Hammurabi and in many of the world’s religions. In
Confucius’ Analectswe find: “Never impose on others what you would
not choose for yourself.” A Hindu variant is found in the Mahabharata: “One should never do that to another which one regards
as injurious to one’s own self” (Wikipedia).
In the West, the Golden Rule has grown into the modern concept of human
dignity. Jesus sowed a seed: NRS
Matthew 7:12 "In
everything do to others as you would have them do to you.” One branch of the
resulting growth is Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. For Kant, the
formal principle from which all moral duties are derived is this: “I ought
never to act except in such a way that I
also will that my maxim should become a universal one” (Kant, 70; Narveson,
248). In sum, we should treat peers as equal to ourselves; and we should care
for their welfare just as we would care for our own.
Jesus’ Golden Rule and Kant’s
Categorical Imperative have greatly influenced the value system of the
Enlightenment and, hence, the modern culture of which we are a part. If we find
that ETI resemble us enough to be considered our peers, then we might invoke
the value system of the Enlightenment - that is, we might invoke the Golden Rule
and impute dignity to our space neighbors. Our moral disposition would be to
approach our new neighbors with operative values such as equality, liberty,
dignity, justice, and mutuality. We would strive to establish just
institutions.
When it comes to dealing with ETI
as individuals, we would impute dignity to them - that is, we would treat each as
a moral end and not merely as a means. “Act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never
simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end,” wrote Kant (Kant,
96). In a more contemporary and theological medium, we might say: “human
dignity is the inherent worth or value of a human person from which no one or
nothing may detract” (Alan Falconer in Childress and Macquarrie, 278). Might we
impute dignity to ETI? Might we treat them with dignity? Might “dignity” become the label for
identifying our responsibility?
The imputation of dignity toward
ETI should be accompanied by a denial of our own right unilaterally to exploit
them. We might encourage the development of bilateral commerce, of course; but
we should do so presuming the equality and liberty of our trading partners. We
might also restrict our intrusion into their ecosphere. We might adapt for ETI
the Race and Randolph
principle aimed at ETNL: “respect the extraterrestrial ecosystem and do not
substantively or irreparably alter it (or its evolutionary trajectory).” In
sum, the ethical principles we invoke to deal with peer ETI might draw upon our
Enlightenment values. We could formulate principles applicable to ETI which we
now invoke to maintain terrestrial justice and peace.
Printer-friendly | Contributed by: Ted Peters
|
