Without access to the story, this seems underspecified.
Firstly, are we postulating a society with various transhuman technologies, but our own counterproductive attitude toward pedophilia (i.e. child porn laws); or a society that, not unreasonably, objects to the possibility that he will end up abusing children in the future even if he currently agrees that it would be immoral? You mention he will never be able to act on his desires, which suggests the former; how certain is he no such opportunity will arise in the future?
For that matter, are we to understand this guy’s pedophilia is a terminal value proper? Or is he simply worried about becoming “someone else” (not unreasonable) by changing his sexual preferences beyond the usual drift associated with being human? People often model pedophiles as psychopaths or demons; if he’s the protagonist, I assume this is not the case here?
People here sometimes say that a rational agent should never change its terminal values. (If one goal is unobtainable, the agent will simply not pursue that goal.) Why, then, can we imagine the man being tempted to do so? Would it be a failure of rationality?
If the answer is that one terminal value can rationally set a goal to change another terminal value, then either
any terminal value of a rational agent can change, or
we need another word for the really terminal values that can’t be changed rationally, and a way of identifying them, and a proof that they exist.
I’m going to assume that a) this is a pervasive societal disapproval of all things pedophilia-related, rather than utilitarian defence of the young; this society generally mirrors our own in this respect and b) his pedophilia is a terminal value, much more deep-seated than other human sexual preferences, but he is otherwise human.
Modifying a terminal value would incur an expected disutility equal to the potential utility of any future opportunities to satisfy this value. Not modifying this particular terminal value incurs an expected disutility as a result of lowered status/shunning; and potential irrational acts in the future leading to to further disutility (trying to rape someone.)
Assuming this fellow does not expect much temptation; that is, this is not a “running on hostile hardware” issue; this comes down to whether the expected loss of opportunity outweighs the loss of status and sadness from being constantly reviled.
I think it would; there are small chances of ending up in some sort of pedophile heaven after some meta-singularity, societal attitudes becoming more permissive (e.g. lowering the age of consent enough to allow him sexual partners, or legalising technological “replacements”;) or even encountering some situation where he can satisfy his desires without incurring too much disutility (this is boosted significantly if he does not hold the usual human don’t-rape-people preference.)
However, it is a given that this is a costly tradeoff; the ostracism will inevitably bring a great deal of disutility, and he will doubtless wish it were not the optimal course of action, even if it is. I don’t think this is irrational as such, although dwelling on it might be.
Without access to the story, this seems underspecified.
Firstly, are we postulating a society with various transhuman technologies, but our own counterproductive attitude toward pedophilia (i.e. child porn laws); or a society that, not unreasonably, objects to the possibility that he will end up abusing children in the future even if he currently agrees that it would be immoral? You mention he will never be able to act on his desires, which suggests the former; how certain is he no such opportunity will arise in the future?
For that matter, are we to understand this guy’s pedophilia is a terminal value proper? Or is he simply worried about becoming “someone else” (not unreasonable) by changing his sexual preferences beyond the usual drift associated with being human? People often model pedophiles as psychopaths or demons; if he’s the protagonist, I assume this is not the case here?
I’m going to assume that a) this is a pervasive societal disapproval of all things pedophilia-related, rather than utilitarian defence of the young; this society generally mirrors our own in this respect and b) his pedophilia is a terminal value, much more deep-seated than other human sexual preferences, but he is otherwise human.
Modifying a terminal value would incur an expected disutility equal to the potential utility of any future opportunities to satisfy this value. Not modifying this particular terminal value incurs an expected disutility as a result of lowered status/shunning; and potential irrational acts in the future leading to to further disutility (trying to rape someone.)
Assuming this fellow does not expect much temptation; that is, this is not a “running on hostile hardware” issue; this comes down to whether the expected loss of opportunity outweighs the loss of status and sadness from being constantly reviled.
I think it would; there are small chances of ending up in some sort of pedophile heaven after some meta-singularity, societal attitudes becoming more permissive (e.g. lowering the age of consent enough to allow him sexual partners, or legalising technological “replacements”;) or even encountering some situation where he can satisfy his desires without incurring too much disutility (this is boosted significantly if he does not hold the usual human don’t-rape-people preference.)
However, it is a given that this is a costly tradeoff; the ostracism will inevitably bring a great deal of disutility, and he will doubtless wish it were not the optimal course of action, even if it is. I don’t think this is irrational as such, although dwelling on it might be.