X-Message-Number: 10141
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:27:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Knowing What's Best for People

> From: Brook Norton <>
> 
> The underlying assertion is that **everyone's goal in life should be to
> maximize their happiness** (in some combination of short and long-term
> happiness). 

To me, it doesn't seem very libertarian to tell people what their goal
"should be." Personally I agree it makes sense (for me) to pursue
happiness. But I respect anyone who chooses to be unhappy. I have a
Catholic friend, for instance, who gives up something pleasurable for
Lent. She believes this is good for her spiritually, even though it does
not make her happy. Also I know people who have made sacrifices to help
other people. The sacrifices did not make them happy, but they felt
compelled to act this way for ethical reasons. To take an extreme example:
a mother may choose to sacrifice her life for her child. This certainly
won't make her happy, but if it is her choice, we should respect it. 

> When people, ignorant of cryonics, believe they are better off dying in old
> age than being frozen, I believe this is the WRONG decision (because I
> believe cryonics has a good chance of success).  It will not lead to as
> much happiness as being frozen would. 

You have no proof of this. For some people, life is difficult and 
painful, and it may be even more difficult if they wake up 100 years from 
now. Who knows? It's impossible to predict. Therefore, I respect the 
decision of anyone who chooses natural death, though I _will_ provide 
them with counter-arguments and information that they may be unaware of, 
in the hope that they may decide to change their minds at some point.

--Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10141