Oh sure—agreed on both counts. If you’re fine with the very repugnant conclusion after raising the bar on h a little, then it’s no real problem. Similar to dust specks, as you say.
On killing-and-replacement I meant it’s morally neutral in standard total utilitarianism’s terms.
I had been thinking that this wouldn’t be an issue in practice, since there’d be an energy opportunity cost… but of course this isn’t true in general: there’d be scenarios where a kill-and-replace action saved energy. Something like DNT would be helpful in such cases.
Oh sure—agreed on both counts. If you’re fine with the very repugnant conclusion after raising the bar on h a little, then it’s no real problem. Similar to dust specks, as you say.
On killing-and-replacement I meant it’s morally neutral in standard total utilitarianism’s terms.
I had been thinking that this wouldn’t be an issue in practice, since there’d be an energy opportunity cost… but of course this isn’t true in general: there’d be scenarios where a kill-and-replace action saved energy. Something like DNT would be helpful in such cases.