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.

shminux comments on an ethical puzzle about brain emulation - Less Wrong Discussion

14 Post author: asr 13 December 2013 09:53PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (55)

Comments (55)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: shminux 14 December 2013 02:52:25AM 0 points [-]

I take for granted that scenario A is bad: one oughtn't be inflicting pain, even if there's no permanent record or consequence of the pain.

Is this deontologically bad, virtue ethics bad or consequentialism bad? Why?

Comment author: asr 14 December 2013 07:52:21AM *  1 point [-]

Yes. I think all three, but deliberately phrased things to avoid committing to a meta-ethical framework.

The virtue-ethics and deontological bits are straightforward: "good people don't hurt people without a very good reason", and "don't hurt people [without a good reason]."

The utilitarian case depends how you define utility. But most utilitarians I talk to believe that suffering is bad per se, even if it doesn't have long term consequences. It's wrong to abuse somebody who's dying, even if they'll be dead soon anyway.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit