Open Thread, November 15-22, 2013

drethelin

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

a real example, if as posited upthread, people are resisting having their loved ones pursue cryonics because it denies them a sense of closure.

Well, one person. And not "resist", but "highly uncomfortable with". And "may (tentatively) be part of the underlying objection". You are adding lots of certainty which is entirely absent from the OP.

I am still interested in your normative position, though. So let's get back to cryonics. Alice and Bob are a monogamous pair. Bob dies, is cryopreserved. Alice is monogamous by nature and young, she feels it's possible that Bob could be successfully thawed during her lifetime.

What, in your opinion, is the ethical thing for Alice to do? Is it OK for her to remarry?

What, in your opinion, is the ethical thing for Alice to do?

Use some clever rationalization and remarry. More rationally, she should be aware that the probability of Bob being resurrected during her lifetime is pretty low.

0Desrtopa13y

I don't think that's enough information for me to return a single specific piece of advice. What does Alice think Bob would think of her getting married in his absence were he to be brought back at a later date? How likely does she think it is that he'd be brought back in her lifetime? Does she think that she'd still want to be in a relationship with him if she waited and he was brought back after, say, forty years? Etc. There are certainly trends in relationship behavior which can constitute actionable information, but I think the solution to any specific relationship problem is likely to be idiosyncratic.