Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I apply ethics only to those who I consider equal or better. So the full answer from my standpoint would be: "Yes, it would be unethical, but this fact won't stop me from ending the simulation if I don't need it anymore."
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.
No, I am not OK with me being "tortured and butchered". I'm not sure if you do understand how to use logic.
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).
How do you get to the point where you consider someone to be inferior to you?
Being stupider is enough to be considered inferior. It is more complicated, but overall intelligence is the main criteria.
Would killing babies or elderly people be okay then? They can both be much more ignorant than the average person.
No, it wouldn't. I leave it to you to figure out why.
I mean they are "stupider", at least the babies. Wouldn't that be enough to be considered inferior in your book?
It is always useful to take into the account a "credit of trust" toward babies and aknowledge of previous achievements if we talk about elders. You see, most of local moralists are American racists, so whatever they hear they apply to their sick racist worldview. So whatever they hear they try to apply to divide HUMANS. I wasn't talk about humans. Most humans (except clinically ill) have +- the comparable level of intellect, so I consider them +- equal to me.
You were referring to non-human animals then?
Wasn't that obvious from the thread's theme?
This is a genuine question, not an insult: do you have any kind of impairment when it comes to conversations and exchanging thoughts?
I might have: English isn't my first (or even second) language. But I consider it good enough for talking at Internet forums.
Reconsider.
So nobody ever has to worry? Good to know.
lol
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.
Thoughts on disabled people?