Why do we have the right to partially immortalize ourselves, if it is possible?

Here are three arguments for the pro-pimm activists, in a nutshell. You can decide the order of strength between them, and it depens on the hierarchy of your background assumptions. Later I explore the detailed structure of the arguments.

The first is based on the main premiss that to be alive is better than to be dead in the present circumstances of mankind. This kind of argument could be called the argument for self-sustainment. Seems triviality at the first sight. But there are opinions that reject it.

The second argument is what we called the argument for self-development or self expression, because partial immortalization in this way is the only possibility for a human and mortal individual to fully explore its own individuality, to develop its own capacities, abilities let it be mental, physical, or moral. For me this is the most motivated argument and it is deep-rooted in the history of philosophy.

The third argument is the argument for self-determination, because participating in a regeneration treatment means that this way the individual can choose the date of its death maximally, as much as possible for a member of a species like that of the homo sapiens, which lives under accidental circumstances. As it is in the subtitle of the Immortality Institute: conquering the blight of involuntary death…

Three kinds of arguments were formulated supporting why an individual could choose this treatment: the arguments for self-sustainment, self-development, and self-determination. The source of the first argument is the desire to stay alive as long as we can, the inspiration behind the second argument comes from the desire to develop our abilities as best as we can, and the inclination leading to the third argument is the desire to control the date of our death, as we can.

Originally posted at May 9th, 2006, http://attilachordash.wordpress.com/

Permalink