Not exactly. You want people to be able to irrevocably bind their future selves.

Not so, and this is an outrageous reading of what I have said. People will still be able to get divorces, just they will have to pay compensation if they are the party at fault. I didn't irrevocably bind my future self when I rented my house, but if I break the lease I'll have to pay compensation to the landlord.

Your comments above suggest that perhaps you don't understand the state of law, at least in the UK.

This is generally currently possible subject to the normal limits on contracts that the society imposes... (e.g. you can't contract to be a slave)...

No it isn't, at least in the UK. All I want is for marriage to be subject to normal limits on contracts, not the special limits on contracts that apply only in the case of marriage. I say "damages in the case of breach" and I am confronted with people suggesting I mean specific performance, dragging people off in chains, or slavery. It's so strange.

I would like to see some supporting evidence for that claim.

Look at the following graph of divorce over time.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons

Note the sharp discontinuity after 1969. What happened then? Oh yes, the Divorce Reform Act of 1969, meaning you no longer had to prove fault to get a divorce (and divorce settlements were also not based on fault).

Now look at the marriage rate:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/gmr_tcm77-258471.png

Again, note the collapsing marriage rate from the early 1970s. Once people realised that marriage wasn't enforceable, the marriage rate collapsed.

Not exactly. You want people to be able to irrevocably bind their future selves.

Not so, and this is an outrageous reading of what I have said. People will still be able to get divorces, just they will have to pay compensation if they are the party at fault. I didn't irrevocably bind my future self when I rented my house, but if I break the lease I'll have to pay compensation to the landlord.

Your comments above suggest that perhaps you don't understand the state of law, at least in the UK.

This is generally currently possible subject to the normal limits on contracts that the society imposes... (e.g. you can't contract to be a slave)...

No it isn't, at least in the UK. All I want is for marriage to be subject to normal limits on contracts, not the special limits on contracts that apply only in the case of marriage. I say "damages in the case of breach" and I am confronted with people suggesting I mean specific performance, dragging people off in chains, or slavery. It's so strange.

I would like to see some supporting evidence for that claim.

Look at the following graph of divorce over time.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons

Note the sharp discontinuity after 1969. What happened then? Oh yes, the Divorce Reform Act of 1969, meaning you no longer had to prove fault to get a divorce (and divorce settlements were also not based on fault).

Now look at the marriage rate:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/gmr_tcm77-258471.png

Again, note the collapsing marriage rate from the early 1970s. Once people realised that marriage wasn't enforceable, the marriage rate collapsed.

But cheating on spouses in general undermines the trust that spouses should have in each other, and the cumulative impact of even 1% of spouses cheating on the institution of marriage as a whole could be quite negative.

In the comments on Scott's blog, I've recently seen the claim that this is the opposite of how traditional marriage actually worked; there used to be a lot more adultery in old times, and it acted as a pressure valve for people who would've divorced nowdays, but naturally it was all swept under the rug.

I think the major issue House Elves create has to do not with (1) first order reasoning over ethical behavior with other people, nor (2) second order character development aimed at other people (binding pre-commitments to do momentarily irrational things to create certain game theoretic incentive systems with pleasing global properties) but something like (3) "third order moral reasoning" over political processes that include people pre-committed to various irrational character regimes being subject to political speech exhorting people to make similar pre-commitments based on shared traits.

Suppose humans meet "radically different aliens". First contact stories are a staple of science fiction and they can play out in various ways. Some of the pleasant outcomes involve humans and aliens changing their mind about some stuff so as to recognize each other as "people" and get along.

Now imagine that humans create house elves to be capable of speech and eye contact and geometric verbal reasoning and laughter and so on. Only then does this two-species composite meet "radically different aliens".

From the alien's perspective, humans and house elves are nearly identical except for a small fudge, right? Since the humans were OK creating the house elves they must endorse that state as "theoretically acceptable". Therefore it wouldn't seem like that large of an imposition to ask the humans to modify themselves that way, right? Maybe the house elves are actually happier? And they're certainly cheaper to feed!

Suppose the aliens earnestly and naively explained that they would be horrified to have created "house aliens" but they don't want to judge us, and would like to participate in our culture to some degree. Since "alien shaped slaves" make them queasy, and house elves are too small to do useful jobs on their space ships they want some humans to explain how to modify full human brains to make them good servants. And could be maybe show them how this technology works and give them some prototype volunteer slave humans? Pretty please? What could possibly go wrong? And they pinky-to-tentacle promise not to abuse the technology... not that humans can yet read the way their mandibles and multi-facted eyes squirm around to distinguish between delight at the opportunity to make new friends or gleeful appreciation of having found a new already-half-tamed slave species to upgrade a little and then sell on the galactic market...

And then the people who have been complaining about house elves all this time freak out about the creation of more "intrinsically oppressed" sentient beings. And the people who insisted that house elves weren't problematic at all don't want to give those dumb liberals "I told you so" credits so they agree with the aliens that maybe some weird humans can be found somewhere to volunteer so that humans can get some pretty glass beads from the aliens.

And six different philosophers/priests/politicians come up with subtly different takes on the issue and argue amongst each other to make a name for themselves, creating bickering factions of supporters... which makes the jobs of the people currently negotiating with the aliens that much harder, because it obviously gives the aliens a BATNA to try waiting for a regime change and seeing if they can get cooperation from one of the currently-out-of-power factions who are squabbling in favor of full cooperation so that humans can get some of those pretty beads the aliens wear!

Maybe there will never be such aliens? Maybe the general sanity waterline is high enough that no one should worry about this stuff? But if you're unsure of the answers to those issues, do you really want to fudge the brightline definition of "human" that we got for free from evolution? If you've going to fudge it, do you really want to fudge it down instead of up? Maybe keeping the universe of "moral atoms" simple enough for 12 year old kids to understand is helpful to making sure everyone acts morally in the long run?

I think that when bioconservatives talk about disgust and purity in the context of transhumanism, these are some of the pragmatic political issues that are lurking behind their moral sentiments. I don't generally "side" with the bioconservatives, but this is a reasonably good zombie argument that I've been able to reconstruct from their position.

How is lying like this ethical under it?

Consequentialism has no problems with lying at all.

Continuing the argument though, I just don't think including actual people on the receiving end into the debate would help determine true beliefs about the best way to solve whatever problem it is. It'd fall prey to the usual suspects like scope insensitivity, emotional pleading, and the like. Someone joins the debate and says "Your plan to wipe out malaria diverted funding away from charities that research the cure to my cute puppy's rare illness, how could you do that?" - how do you respond to that truthfully while maintaining basic social standards of politeness?

Someone affected by the issue might bring up something that nobody else had thought of, something that the science and statistics and studies missed - but other than that, what marginal value are they adding to the discussion?

There's only a certain amount of emphasis to go around. The more things you italicize, the less important each italicized word seems, and then when something's really important it doesn't stand out. It's like swearing---if I swear every time I spill a glass of water, then it loses its effect and when I drop a hammer on my toe there is nothing I can think of that will express the strength of my feelings.

In comics, the difference in weight between bold and standard is much less than in typical fonts. I think it works well in comics but here it makes me read things out of order in a distracting way.