An anti-torture Association could form with the following rules:
1) All members interact only with people in the Association.
2) Everyone in the Association agrees to submit to random surprise inspections of their computing hardware to see if they’re mistreating ems. Anyone found to be mistreating ems will be expelled.
3) Anyone willing to follow these rules can join this Association.
4) We will seek to use violence to prevent anyone not in this Association from having the technological capacity to make emulations.
It could form, but I don’t see how much good it would do unless there was a substantial consensus in favor of not torturing ems, so that people in the Association gain by having more/better people to associate with than those not in the Association, and so that the Association has a chance of succeeding in its use of violence.
There are also practical problems—some people would probably like to spend time in challenging simulations. What’s the boundary between that and torture, and how do you verify consent?
It could form, but I don’t see how much good it would do unless there was a substantial consensus in favor of not torturing ems, so that people in the Association gain by having more/better people to associate with than those not in the Association, and so that the Association has a chance of succeeding in its use of violence.
Indeed.
Compare to the anti-abuse Association, which I don’t see happening any time soon:
1) All members interact only with people in the Association.
2) Everyone in the Association agrees to submit to random surprise inspections of their homes to see if they’re mistreating their children, spouses, elderly relatives or pets. Anyone found to be mistreating other people or animals will be expelled.
3) Anyone willing to follow these rules can join this Association.
4) We will seek to use violence to prevent anyone not in this Association from living together with someone, or from having pets.
That’s what I suspected. Obviously, neither of those conducts random surprise inspections on people’s homes without evidence, which is what’d be required.
Well, in point of fact the police are empowered to do so if they have reason to believe you are committing abuse. The requirement for a reason does make the analogy imperfect.
The requirement for a reason does make the analogy imperfect.
More than just imperfect. The police being able to do so if there’s a good enough reason is very, very different from everyone being constantly aware of the fact that their home may be audited at any moment, and indeed will be audited many times over.
An anti-torture Association could form with the following rules:
1) All members interact only with people in the Association.
2) Everyone in the Association agrees to submit to random surprise inspections of their computing hardware to see if they’re mistreating ems. Anyone found to be mistreating ems will be expelled.
3) Anyone willing to follow these rules can join this Association.
4) We will seek to use violence to prevent anyone not in this Association from having the technological capacity to make emulations.
It could form, but I don’t see how much good it would do unless there was a substantial consensus in favor of not torturing ems, so that people in the Association gain by having more/better people to associate with than those not in the Association, and so that the Association has a chance of succeeding in its use of violence.
There are also practical problems—some people would probably like to spend time in challenging simulations. What’s the boundary between that and torture, and how do you verify consent?
Indeed.
Compare to the anti-abuse Association, which I don’t see happening any time soon:
1) All members interact only with people in the Association.
2) Everyone in the Association agrees to submit to random surprise inspections of their homes to see if they’re mistreating their children, spouses, elderly relatives or pets. Anyone found to be mistreating other people or animals will be expelled.
3) Anyone willing to follow these rules can join this Association.
4) We will seek to use violence to prevent anyone not in this Association from living together with someone, or from having pets.
Isn’t this what we have, except it’s opt-out?
I don’t understand what you mean.
The claim is that the association is “government” or “modern society”.
That’s what I suspected. Obviously, neither of those conducts random surprise inspections on people’s homes without evidence, which is what’d be required.
Well, in point of fact the police are empowered to do so if they have reason to believe you are committing abuse. The requirement for a reason does make the analogy imperfect.
More than just imperfect. The police being able to do so if there’s a good enough reason is very, very different from everyone being constantly aware of the fact that their home may be audited at any moment, and indeed will be audited many times over.