wedrifid comments on Consequentialism Need Not Be Nearsighted - Less Wrong

53 Post author: orthonormal 02 September 2011 07:37AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (118)
Tags: deontology consequentialism

Comments (118)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: loup-vaillant 01 September 2011 12:06:02PM *  4 points [-]

Then I have an "easy" patch: let the entity that does the spotting and killing be incorruptible and infallible. Like, an AI, an army of robots, or something. With that, I don't see any obvious flaw beyond the fact that, with this level of technology, there are very probably better alternatives than transplantation. But the idea of creating a machine for the explicit purpose of killing people might be even more creepy than the police state we're vaguely familiar with.

Compare with the comment I saw somewhere with this dilemma:

  • (a) Let the aliens that happen to visit us cure cancer, except for 1 random patient out of 100, that they will let die, then eat.
  • (b) Just let the aliens go, never to be heard of again.
Comment author: wedrifid 02 September 2011 02:40:39AM 2 points [-]

Compare with the comment I saw somewhere with this dilemma:

(a) Let the aliens that happen to visit us cure cancer, except for 1 random patient out of 100, that they will let die, then eat. (b) Just let the aliens go, never to be heard of again.

Let die? As in wait until they die by natural(ish) causes then eat the corpse? This sounds like a no-brainer. (Cryonicists might have some concerns about the meaning of death, however. Hopefully the patients agree that they are dead at the time!)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit