You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Baughn comments on The Argument From Marginal Cases - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: jkaufman 26 July 2013 01:30PM

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

Comments (55)

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

Comment author: Baughn 28 July 2013 11:57:54AM *  7 points [-]

Steel-man the argument.

Let's say you have a machine that, with absolute certainty, will create an adult human whose life is not worth living, but who would not agree to suicide. Or that is only barely worth living, if you lean towards average utilitarianism.

It currently only has the DNA.

Would you turn it off?

How about if it's already a fetus? A baby? Somewhere along the line, does the actual current state start to matter, and if so where?

Comment author: [deleted] 28 July 2013 07:04:07PM 1 point [-]

...oh.

That highlights certain conflicts among my moral intuitions I hadn't noticed before.

All in all, I think I would turn the machine off, unless the resulting person was going to live in an underpopulated country, or I know that the DNA is taken from parents with unusually high IQ and/or other desirable genetically inheritable traits.

Comment author: Kawoomba 28 July 2013 09:08:47PM 1 point [-]

All in all, I think I would turn the machine off

The machine incubates humans until they are the equivalent of 3 months old (the famed 4th trimester).

Would you turn it off at all stages?

Comment author: Baughn 28 July 2013 09:35:50PM *  2 points [-]

(Not saying you misread me, but:)

The way I put it, it creates an adult human with absolute certainty. There may or may not be an actual, physical test tube involved; it could be an chessmaster AI, or whatnot. The implementation shouldn't matter. For completeness, assume it'll be an adult human who'll live forever, so the implementation becomes an evanescent fraction.

The intended exception is that you can turn it off (destroying the (potential-)human at that stage), any time from DNA string to adult. There are, of course, no legal consequences or whatnot; steel-man as appropriate.

Given that, in what time period - if any - is turning it off okay?

Personally, I'll go with "Up until the brain starts developing, then gradually less okay, based on uncertainty about brain development as well as actual differences in value." I care very little about potential people.

Comment author: [deleted] 28 July 2013 09:40:37PM 0 points [-]

I don't know.

I'm so glad that I don't live in the Least Convenient Possible World so I don't have to make such a choice.