ethics of a higher intelligence

[Inspector]

Using that thought then, is Moose hypothesizing some other level which trips some other switch that changes the moral code. What would that be, exactly?

I know that the easy answer is that we have crossed some critical threshold (i.e. the capacity to reason) that makes it immoral for us to be murdered. But suppose that the aliens have crossed some other critical threshold that puts them on a level of consciousness that we can't even fathom. To them, we look like barely conscious automatons that only operate on a very primitive level of reasoning and morality.

It appears Kendall was right.

The trouble with that question is, to answer it we would have to know what that new threshold is. I can't fathom what it would be or how it would invalidate our ethics from our perspective. The reason we have rights is because we use reason to survive. These aliens would have to be using something else to survive, besides reason. Like being vampires or some other kind of metaphysical parasite. But from our perspective, they would still be "bad for us," and not morally superior beings that we have to submit to.

Basically, it would boil down to force at that point. Being powerful, we couldn't stop them (at least right away), but I can't see how it would be possible for it to be immoral for us to stop them.

Again, without knowing what this threshold is, the question is unanswerable. I suspect such a threshold can't exist.

[The Wrath]

Well, one thing that my question assumes is that, whatever that threshold may be, we are incapable of understanding it or even recognizing it. So I can't really say what it might be. I suppose omniscience is an obvious threshold that we haven't crossed, but I think that's a bit too extreme, since no creature could ever evolve to such a state.

[D'kian]

Well, one thing that my question assumes is that, whatever that threshold may be, we are incapable of understanding it or even recognizing it.

Would a dog be capable of envisioning or undertanding the conceptual level? I suppose not. It does not follow that because we can't envision yet a higher level that one must exist. Arguments from analogy go only so far.

So I can't really say what it might be. I suppose omniscience is an obvious threshold that we haven't crossed, but I think that's a bit too extreme, since no creature could ever evolve to such a state.

Omniscience is usually defined as being all-knowing. Aside from it being impossible, it would be a mere (mere, I say!) adjunct to the conceptual level. I, an avid reader, know tons of facts more than most people I know. That is, the raw amount of knowledge I posses is higher than theirs. But we're equally volitional just the same.

It's not wrong to pose questions for which you do not ahve an answer. Indeed, that's one of the best ways to learn. but hypothetical questions usually have all the information required for speculation. I'm afraid your question faisl in that respect.

[The Wrath]

I'm not saying that it must exist because we can't envision it. I'm saying that, for the sake of my questions, I am assuming that one does exist.

[Inspector]

I'm saying that, for the sake of my questions, I am assuming that one does exist.

That's fine, but as D'kian says that still doesn't give us enough information for the question to be answerable.