Lightwave comments on Life Extension versus Replacement - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Julia_Galef 30 November 2011 01:47AM

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

Comments (98)

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

Comment author: Lightwave 23 December 2011 09:06:19AM 0 points [-]

They are not equivalent, because the person in the coma did live.

Well it seems it comes down to the above being something like a terminal value (if those even exist). I personally can't see how it's justified that a certain mind that had happened (by chance) to exist at some point in time is more morally significant than other minds that would equally like to be alive, but hadn't had the chance to have been created. It's just arbitrary.

Comment author: peter_hurford 05 January 2012 06:13:07AM 0 points [-]

Upon further reflection, I think I was much too hasty in my discussion here. You said that "Compare this to a person who is in a coma. He currently has no preferences". How do we know the person in the coma has no pereferences?

I'm going to agree that if the person has no preferences, then there is nothing normatively significant about that person. This means we don't have to turn the robot on, we don't have to resurrect dead people, we don't have to oppose all abortion, and we don't have to have as much procreative sex as possible.

On this further reflection, I'm confused as to what your objection is or how it makes life extension and replacement even. As the original comment says, life extension satisfies existing preferences whereas replacement does not, because no such preferences exist.