= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Konkvistador comments on Poly marriage? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (127)
I wonder what kind of legal recognition might work to encourage and recognize pet owners who have developed particularly deep (I'm not talking sexual necessarily) bonds to their pets. Considering the benefits of such relationships to society I think they deserve some recognition, not really marriage (which was brought up by some commenters), but something.
It isn't clear to me what the purpose of such a legally recognized partnership would be. All the functions of legal inter-human marriage that I can think of are inapplicable. Humans already have the rights to do anything they want to their pets. Giving rights to pets is pointless if they can't effectively claim them (deciding on partner's treatment in a medical emergency, custody of partner's body after death). Tax and property rights - non-humans can't own property or money. Custody of children is irrelevant. Etc.
As a consequentialist, the question I care about when considering whether recognition should be granted is whether the recognition of the relationship has a societal benefit, not whether the relationship has societal benefit regardless of the recognition.
The reason why I considered this is because I think genuine bonding at least with long lived animals produces humans who care about nature more as well as provides social benefits to those who can't find humans who would interact with them in this way.
By de-stigmatizing and even commending such relationships, perhaps clearly differentiating them from animal hoarders (who do themselves and the animals harm by trying to "take care" of too many), we would ideally cause more such relationships to develop.
My opinion on people interacting and bonding with social robots or programs is similar.
Hm. Some sort of standardized institution in place to take care of the pet in case the human dies, perhaps? Tax breaks?