DanielLC comments on Stupid Questions June 2015 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Gondolinian 31 May 2015 02:14AM

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

Comments (195)

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

Comment author: DanielLC 31 May 2015 07:59:51AM 4 points [-]

I figure it's better to live for the better part of a century than to not live at all.

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 31 May 2015 12:25:28PM *  0 points [-]

So, every possible human that could exist has moral value? Why isn't it more ethical to produce as many children as will fit in a female's lifespan?

Comment author: ChristianKl 31 May 2015 03:28:23PM 3 points [-]

Why isn't it more ethical to produce as many children as will fit in a female's lifespan?

Rescuing lives in the third world is cheaper than getting children, if your goal is altruism. On the other hand altruism isn't the only reason to get children.

Comment author: Jiro 01 June 2015 03:54:39PM 0 points [-]

If your goal is altruism, and you value all people equally, anyway. Not many people outside of here do.

Comment author: ChristianKl 01 June 2015 04:05:24PM 1 point [-]

If your goal isn't altruism then why ask "Why isn't it more ethical to produce as many children as will fit in a female's lifespan?". Simply get as many children as you want to have.

Comment author: Jiro 01 June 2015 06:11:32PM 0 points [-]

The "and" in my reply connects two separate conditions. It is possible that your goal is altruism but you don't value people equally. The question of whether having many children is ethical could depend on exactly what factors you use to weigh your children over strangers.

Comment author: Dahlen 31 May 2015 01:51:35PM 1 point [-]

This looks like one hell of an occasion for satisficing instead of optimizing.

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 31 May 2015 02:50:51PM 0 points [-]

I was being rhetorical. I don't think there is any moral obligation for someone who never existed to exist.

Comment author: DanielLC 31 May 2015 09:34:48PM 0 points [-]

It's not practical in the short term. Long term, I think we should build Dyson spheres or whatever else it takes to make as many happy people as possible.

What do you mean by every possible human that could exist having moral value? If you think it's bad to create them and then kill them, you're already assigning moral value. We already seem to agree on the idea that creating and then killing a person and not creating a person are morally comparable and not of equal value. The only question is which is better.

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 01 June 2015 01:19:55PM 0 points [-]

No, I don't think that an uncreated person has value. Why would it?

Or am I misinterpreting?