If they're sentient? Yep.
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
110 points (95.8% liked)
Ask Lemmy
38865 readers
2307 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No.
Would they feel any pain or suffering if you shut the simulation down? If not, which seems like the intuitive answer, then it is ethical.
Killing people in a traditional sense is unethical because you inevitably subject them to suffering agony. Also, the killed one won't be your only victim, as any people related to them would be subjected to psychological trauma.
Whether plugging off simulated consciousnesses is moral is another question tho.
Let's see the people split into pro-simlife and pro-simchoice camps.
Even my Arduino had intelligence, but I switched off the power.
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."
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?
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.
Being stupider
So nobody ever has to worry? Good to know.
criteria
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.
I'd argue that ethics should be applied to all living things.
So what do you eat then?
Dead things.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Thoughts on disabled people?
load more comments
(6 replies)