Edit: since he’s not picking up, I’ll raise what I think his point might be.
He sees ethics applying to his equals or betters. In that case, even if a more advanced race comes along, it would still apply to him, because he made himself the measuring stick, so he would oppose torturing of, at least, some humans.
Where our dimwitted friend failed to follow the reasoning is that, if value (in the case, being worthy of ethical concern) is in the eye of the beholder, a more advanced race then would see our dimwitted friend as a lesser animal and butcher him with no qualms.
That’s a dangerous line of reasoning. Depending on who you ask, people won’t consider a lot of things “equal or better”.
In no particulary order, a lot of people would not apply ethics to: Animals in general, pets, children, woman or all people of different ethnicitiy, religion or even political views.
I’d argue that ethics should be applied to all living things. Well, at least all things capable of suffering, but that keeps people arguing again - doctors even used to think that human babies aren’t fully capable of that.
Regarding the original question: The simulation isn’t alive. Stopping it won’t ‘kill’ it, assuming it can be resumed. Deleting it, however, argubly is be unethical, yet it does not cause suffering at the very least.
I’m making this distinction because the post he’s replying to said they “only applied ethics to their equals or betters”, which is appalling: it’s not even concluding that something bad is ethical, it was just outright denying that ethics even applied to “lesser beings”.
Regarding your point, I think it’s widely consensual that killing for sustenance, if no other choices exist, is ethical - even vegans agree with this, and by nature, they don’t tend to agree with much (haha joke, calm down vegans!).
Where it gets more debatable is killing animals, who are very much capable of suffering and do possess a measure of self awareness and intelligence, when alternatives exist.
Since “veganism” is the rejection of exploitation of animals by Man, I’m not sure most vegans would say it’s ethical even when there’s no other option, but they probably wouldn’t judge either way.
It is the rejection of exploitation of animals as far as is possible and practicable, as per the vegan society’s definition.
I’m sure individual opinions can differ and that others might hold more restrictive views, but like you said, in extreme circumstances people would probably not judge, we’re in agreement 🤝
I’m vegan. Even if you argue that plants can suffer - it’s the least amount of suffering I can cause without starving myself.
Also “applying ethics” does not mean it’s automatically unethical - just that I think about it beforehand instead of categorically thinking “it’s okay because I’m something better”.
deleted by creator
The ethics of a slave owner.
So if a more advanced alien race came over and started torturing and butchering humans, by your logic you’d be perfectly OK with that.
deleted by creator
Do explain then.
Edit: since he’s not picking up, I’ll raise what I think his point might be.
He sees ethics applying to his equals or betters. In that case, even if a more advanced race comes along, it would still apply to him, because he made himself the measuring stick, so he would oppose torturing of, at least, some humans.
Where our dimwitted friend failed to follow the reasoning is that, if value (in the case, being worthy of ethical concern) is in the eye of the beholder, a more advanced race then would see our dimwitted friend as a lesser animal and butcher him with no qualms.
He can’t, he’s merely an unprincipled edgelord.
You’re either a psychopath or an edgy teen (overlapping affairs though).
That’s a dangerous line of reasoning. Depending on who you ask, people won’t consider a lot of things “equal or better”.
In no particulary order, a lot of people would not apply ethics to: Animals in general, pets, children, woman or all people of different ethnicitiy, religion or even political views.
I’d argue that ethics should be applied to all living things. Well, at least all things capable of suffering, but that keeps people arguing again - doctors even used to think that human babies aren’t fully capable of that.
Regarding the original question: The simulation isn’t alive. Stopping it won’t ‘kill’ it, assuming it can be resumed. Deleting it, however, argubly is be unethical, yet it does not cause suffering at the very least.
So what do you eat then?
Applying ethics isn’t saying that it’s unethical.
I’m making this distinction because the post he’s replying to said they “only applied ethics to their equals or betters”, which is appalling: it’s not even concluding that something bad is ethical, it was just outright denying that ethics even applied to “lesser beings”.
Regarding your point, I think it’s widely consensual that killing for sustenance, if no other choices exist, is ethical - even vegans agree with this, and by nature, they don’t tend to agree with much (haha joke, calm down vegans!).
Where it gets more debatable is killing animals, who are very much capable of suffering and do possess a measure of self awareness and intelligence, when alternatives exist.
Makes sense, misunderstood you there.
Since “veganism” is the rejection of exploitation of animals by Man, I’m not sure most vegans would say it’s ethical even when there’s no other option, but they probably wouldn’t judge either way.
It is the rejection of exploitation of animals as far as is possible and practicable, as per the vegan society’s definition.
I’m sure individual opinions can differ and that others might hold more restrictive views, but like you said, in extreme circumstances people would probably not judge, we’re in agreement 🤝
I’m vegan. Even if you argue that plants can suffer - it’s the least amount of suffering I can cause without starving myself.
Also “applying ethics” does not mean it’s automatically unethical - just that I think about it beforehand instead of categorically thinking “it’s okay because I’m something better”.
Dead things.
How do you get to the point where you consider someone to be inferior to you?
deleted by creator
Would killing babies or elderly people be okay then? They can both be much more ignorant than the average person.
deleted by creator
I mean they are “stupider”, at least the babies. Wouldn’t that be enough to be considered inferior in your book?
deleted by creator
You were referring to non-human animals then?
deleted by creator
So nobody ever has to worry? Good to know.
lol
Thoughts on disabled people?