This actually happens with people preferring books to ebooks or vinyl records to MP3 files.
But anyway, I’ll respond with a second hypothetical.
Gasoline Gal is married. She expressed a preference that her husband remain faithful to her, and being old fashioned, even made sure that her marriage vows promised faithfulness.
You are not trying to convince her to accept either hydrogen engines or uploading. Rather, you are trying to convince her that she should not prefer that her husband remains faithful to her. At most, she can prefer that her husband remains faithful to her as far as she knows. As long as she does not know and cannot detect his unfaithfulness, it causes no harm to her. She objects, of course, that it could cause harm in some indirect way (such as increasing his chance of passing a STD to her), but since this is a hypothetical, you say “if your husband cheats on you, but because of some circumstance, this doesn’t increase your risk of STDs or otherwise cause you any physical harm, and it causes you no mental damage because you don’t know about it, is he wronging you? And is this a situation you shouldn’t prefer?” You say that he has not wronged her and she should have no preference against that situation. Indeed, you’re not even sure it is meaningful to have a preference against that kind of situation. She disagrees. Who is right?
This is related to the fact that utilitarianism is bad at handling blissful ignorance situations although the problem is by no means limited to utilitarianism.
This actually happens with people preferring books to ebooks or vinyl records to MP3 files.
OT nitpicking: books you can resell or lend, no such luck with ebooks, they work without electricity, quick shuffling through pages is easier with books, MP3 distort sound (though not perceivably at higher bitrates), so this was not such a great analogy. But yes, your point is valid.
Well, of course, the new question is designed to shed light on an issue in the original question. The original question suggests that Gal is wrong for preferring something that she can’t distinguish from the alternative and which doesn’t harm her. But in my scenario, most of us think that it is completely reasonable to prefer just that. And ethical systems based around pleasure/happiness aren’t able to recognize this without contrivances.
For the record: I’m not sold on “completely reasonable to prefer just that” at all. It may be simply because I experience almost no jealousy—the only “rules” in my relationship are about the things that could actually hurt me (whether I knew what she was up to or not) - but I really don’t see the cheating itself as a problem. Now, it does indicate that your partner is less trustworthy, less true to their promises, than you might have expected. That could be a problem. But in the hypothetical situation that my partner only breaks promises in ways that A) I won’t know, and B) won’t hurt me, I really don’t care. Who am I, to control my partner’s life that way? Of course, I’m highly unlikely to ever enter into an arrangement as described in the first place, so I’m not the hypothetical alternative Gal being discussed in any case.
However, there’s another difference: with the car, Gal can—at need, or simply for fun—pop the hood and see the thing that pierces the illusion. In order for the illusion to persist, she needs to literally never look at the gasoline engine that she “thinks” powers the car. Whereas with the infidelity, so long as one doesn’t stalk one’s partner or compel them to tell the truth about their faithfulness, one would never be the wiser. The illusion of faithfulness really is as good as the real thing, and that’s just not true of the car unless you’re some weird sort of internal combustion fanatic who would never actually try to look upon their own engine.
But you’re not “most of us”. The sentiment is common enough that any attempt to distill human morality down to principles has to take it into account, or at least state outright “this system is at odds with most people’s ideas of morality, and is designed to be so from the start”.
Gal can—at need, or simply for fun—pop the hood and see the thing that pierces the illusion.
It’s an analogy. If it’s used for mind uploading or copying, Gal can’t “pop open the hood” and see that she doesn’t have continuity of identity with the original Gal.
This actually happens with people preferring books to ebooks or vinyl records to MP3 files.
But anyway, I’ll respond with a second hypothetical.
Gasoline Gal is married. She expressed a preference that her husband remain faithful to her, and being old fashioned, even made sure that her marriage vows promised faithfulness.
You are not trying to convince her to accept either hydrogen engines or uploading. Rather, you are trying to convince her that she should not prefer that her husband remains faithful to her. At most, she can prefer that her husband remains faithful to her as far as she knows. As long as she does not know and cannot detect his unfaithfulness, it causes no harm to her. She objects, of course, that it could cause harm in some indirect way (such as increasing his chance of passing a STD to her), but since this is a hypothetical, you say “if your husband cheats on you, but because of some circumstance, this doesn’t increase your risk of STDs or otherwise cause you any physical harm, and it causes you no mental damage because you don’t know about it, is he wronging you? And is this a situation you shouldn’t prefer?” You say that he has not wronged her and she should have no preference against that situation. Indeed, you’re not even sure it is meaningful to have a preference against that kind of situation. She disagrees. Who is right?
This is related to the fact that utilitarianism is bad at handling blissful ignorance situations although the problem is by no means limited to utilitarianism.
OT nitpicking: books you can resell or lend, no such luck with ebooks, they work without electricity, quick shuffling through pages is easier with books, MP3 distort sound (though not perceivably at higher bitrates), so this was not such a great analogy. But yes, your point is valid.
Interesting alternate question. I think in your new question, she is right.
Well, of course, the new question is designed to shed light on an issue in the original question. The original question suggests that Gal is wrong for preferring something that she can’t distinguish from the alternative and which doesn’t harm her. But in my scenario, most of us think that it is completely reasonable to prefer just that. And ethical systems based around pleasure/happiness aren’t able to recognize this without contrivances.
For the record: I’m not sold on “completely reasonable to prefer just that” at all. It may be simply because I experience almost no jealousy—the only “rules” in my relationship are about the things that could actually hurt me (whether I knew what she was up to or not) - but I really don’t see the cheating itself as a problem. Now, it does indicate that your partner is less trustworthy, less true to their promises, than you might have expected. That could be a problem. But in the hypothetical situation that my partner only breaks promises in ways that A) I won’t know, and B) won’t hurt me, I really don’t care. Who am I, to control my partner’s life that way? Of course, I’m highly unlikely to ever enter into an arrangement as described in the first place, so I’m not the hypothetical alternative Gal being discussed in any case.
However, there’s another difference: with the car, Gal can—at need, or simply for fun—pop the hood and see the thing that pierces the illusion. In order for the illusion to persist, she needs to literally never look at the gasoline engine that she “thinks” powers the car. Whereas with the infidelity, so long as one doesn’t stalk one’s partner or compel them to tell the truth about their faithfulness, one would never be the wiser. The illusion of faithfulness really is as good as the real thing, and that’s just not true of the car unless you’re some weird sort of internal combustion fanatic who would never actually try to look upon their own engine.
But you’re not “most of us”. The sentiment is common enough that any attempt to distill human morality down to principles has to take it into account, or at least state outright “this system is at odds with most people’s ideas of morality, and is designed to be so from the start”.
It’s an analogy. If it’s used for mind uploading or copying, Gal can’t “pop open the hood” and see that she doesn’t have continuity of identity with the original Gal.