Unknown, I think the slugs are relevant. I should think most of us would agree that all other things being equal, a world with less pain is better than one with more, and a world with more intelligent life is better than one with less.
Defenders of SPECKS argue that the quality of pain absolutely matters: that the pain of no amount of dust specks could add up to that of torture. To do this, they must accept the awkward position that the badness of an experience partially depends on how many other people have suffered it. Defenders of TORTURE say, “Shut up and multiply.”
Defenders of HUMANS say that the quality of personhood absolutely matters: that the goodness of no amount of existing slugs could add up to that of existing humans. To do this, they must accept the awkward position that the goodness of an entity existing partially depends on what other kinds of entities exist. Hypothetical defenders of SLUGS say, “Shut up and multiply.”
Unknown, I think the slugs are relevant. I should think most of us would agree that all other things being equal, a world with less pain is better than one with more, and a world with more intelligent life is better than one with less.
Defenders of SPECKS argue that the quality of pain absolutely matters: that the pain of no amount of dust specks could add up to that of torture. To do this, they must accept the awkward position that the badness of an experience partially depends on how many other people have suffered it. Defenders of TORTURE say, “Shut up and multiply.”
Defenders of HUMANS say that the quality of personhood absolutely matters: that the goodness of no amount of existing slugs could add up to that of existing humans. To do this, they must accept the awkward position that the goodness of an entity existing partially depends on what other kinds of entities exist. Hypothetical defenders of SLUGS say, “Shut up and multiply.”
Aren’t the situations similar?