From: Stuart Armstrong (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2008 - 07:42:06 MDT
> I agree completely. But our point of view implies, at least to me,
> that we regard all our copies equally, on the same ontological
> footing as it were. "Bad runtime" + "good runtime" is either bad
> or good depending on which of the two is greater quantitatively.
This is similar to the idea of treating each individual as being on
the same legal/moral, etc... footing?
But we don't allow some people to be tortured just because "on
average", everyone will come out ahead. Similarly, I think we should
put an ethical lower limit on the degree of suffering any copy could
put up with, rather than just trying to maximise the sum over the good
runtimes and the bad.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT