Dear Michael!
I had the opportunity to read your essay. Which is inevitably well written, well thought out, huge work. Even more you have a concrete project giving a sophisticate software which is based on your conceptualized 'Moral theory' and voting system.
What I feel behind,you are tying to give a live-sample concerning this essay contest relevant theme - How should humanity steer itself as much individually freed and as being a societal structure.
I'll appreciate your entry with an admiration. but based on the present written Fqxi rating rules (to rate the entries by the degree to which they are relevant and interesting, as more specifically described below, with 1/3 weight given to relevancy and 2/3 weight given to interest..).
But, I do not expect you to reciprocally rate or read at all, my essay! (Keep in mind - you wrote it - "A candidate who speaks for her voters no longer speaks for herself ...')
In regard of this essay contest given rules, my freedom is too to choose for reading and/or rate one whose essay attracts my attention concerning those conveyed thoughts which either fits into mine and/or that can further broaden my and the larger scale view. My freedom to decide too, wishing to become a winner thus being concerned getting more rating (which is not so much chance for me because I'm not an fqxi member), or my goal may be disseminating thoughts which may help each others. Not only my essay relevant or not, but my several comments/posts conversations I put quite because I wished to know about.
Your freedom seems to follow your statement "(D)Just those action norms are valid to which all possibly affected persons could agree as participants in rational discourses." (as you put it out in your wiki page and in this of your comment given me ) e.g. you will read and rate one's essay who reciprocate you. I keep your freedom being a bit more constrained by your own rule, than what this essay contest allows for learning something or see an other people view.
(My Note: This is not the right place to technically evaluate whether this front-end 'forum or blog motor' is the best one to oversee and follow those participants' thoughts and their posts and conversations whom one keeps important. I hope, those who are behind for the eventual evaluation and decision making process have a better back-end area for filtering and gathering the relevant thoughts and persons which/whom they keep surely important). And due to my morality principle inside, I won't give a lowered rate just because I have some disagreement. If I rate your essay I will keep only the above mentioned rules.
Do not take my words as a criticism, much rather I intend them for thought sharing and some counter opining.
1. "..I invite you to consider a strangely opposite view in which morality, by leaning upon a universal, physical constraint of nature, can enable us to break free of contingency and.."
(P1)
Let all communications be limited to light speed
There is a long run philosophical debate whether the mind/spirit is over the matter or reversely. Due to my philosophical vein too, let me abbreviate some thoughts from my earlier writing (never published)
- Mainly Hegel formulated that the spirit's existence is the unity of theoretical activity and its experiential realization which he put under the process of recognition. He stated that the spirit able to control the nature and under progress of cognizance it is able to ascend oneself. Before him Kant found and critiqued a profound contradiction in the a priori, antecedent knowledge gained by intuition which he deemed to be possible only when the human mind participates actively in his own reality creating (experimental) process: But if there is something transcendent truth above and beyond our logical reasoning of all of our experiences that the metaphysics seeks for, it would be probably unknowable applying only the pure understanding of mathematical principles which are based on abstract logic. While the antique materialism interpreted the spirit to be most reasonable part of the soul psyche which is pervasive in the whole of body, the after materialistic philosophy put the nature into the first place and the spirit remained secondary. -
Kant's thoughts incorporate your full logic to which you established your 'rational being' and his/its moral concepts theory.
Let me disagree with your (P1) premise.
Neither the nature nor the human perception is constrained, can be limited to communicate at a light speed. You surely can't prove the pre-cognition and FTL non-local thoughts communication, as Kant also did not understand the a-piori knowledge, albeit it exists. This is because the whole structure or actual stratum of the physical arrangement of the never created forever self-organizing nature (crystals, animals, plants) has an energy imprint or encompassing field flowing from inside/outside. This imprint also can be conceptualized 'as a starry field' too, as a self-reforming structure giving birth for an everlasting life. Because it is a long hold interpretation in the collective thoughts field, surely this is why you can formulate the 'forever retelling myth looking into the starts', however this conception need to be changed to somehow 'rationally' being understood not only being the subject of blind faith or myth. This energy field also may be conceptualized as an all-encompassing thoughts field (involving the physical structure of stratum of nature too) and all knowing self-contained information. All communicate at all levels without 'speed'. But, as Hegel discerned that the spirit's - what we would name all encompassing all pervading existential field living inside/outside and has a physical arrangement too we name nature - is the unity of 'a theoretical activity' and its experiential realization which he put under the process of recognition. He stated that the spirit able to control the nature and under progress of cognizance it is able to ascend oneself. Which means that an advanced human or humanity who has the grasp of it and can understand itself as a spirit living inside and outside and simultaneously in a physical body arrangement too, should has a control over the nature and himself. This also means he has the ability to control his thoughts and every information in it, and can arrange as per any kind of abstraction about his spirit (being a quark, line spark, star, trees,.. etc.) Even he can change his naturally given bodily form. WHAT YOU WOULD THINK ABOUT THE SPIRIT THE THOUGHT IS NOT RESTRICTED TO SPEED OF LIGHT. The speed of light is a theoretical abstraction too. THIS IS THE ONLY TOTAL FREEDOM WHAT ONE WOULD DISPOSE OF, and a TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY WHAT TO DO WITH IT!
Thus, the thought as a kind of form of the energy and information is not limited to the speed of light at all. Even if your claim for that thoughts there be reduced/limited to the speed of light handleable in or through a satisfactorily arranged physical body should be a reasonable requirement because' ".. sometimes a limitation is a good thing, especially in human affairs. ..that the best we might hope for is some kind of limiting arrangement that served to protect 'differing groups of human beings.."
2. You propose "..we can deal with in terms of present-day moral theory.." however: Pls. see our present day theoretical physics and those beyond reason possible technological development are just on a counter track of how to allow and achieve a collective freedom and moral of thoughts. We are just trying to develop such kind of technologies - how to control the thoughts at every cost. We are on the culmination of information warfare literally fighting again such entities who are out of grasp very because of our limited thoughts.
3. I can agree "... The tipping points between success and failure are many, and each hinges on the freedom of an individual whose identity is unknown!"
4. I can agree too - but (P2) Let reason be the supreme value.
Furthermore your thesis, inevitably worth for further deeper examination, because always that was a very crucial question - how to maintain a collective free will in a hierarchically structured organism as a society. At natural level there is only collective free will 'working' for the whole so, - the reason be the supreme value. However, I do not think the collective consensus being established by rules of voting and collectively editing draft texts even serious non academic peer reviews where "(D) Just those action norms are valid to which all possibly affected persons could agree as participants in rational discourses" will be enough to resolve the actions brought by such thoughts taken by entities out of our present moment grasp.
I was a bit longer than just a few sentence, but I couldn't be shorter to mention.
I offer again my own written annotation toolwhich has many capabilities and features also for highlighting (albeit if a page often change you will lose the previous highlights position but the content will remain in the database) Just try it if you think. I do not expect any review also for that. I'm glad if you can keep it useful for yourself.
Kind regards,
Valeria