The moral argument against simulated universes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In my readings on this subject I have read of a moral argument against simulated universes.
That it would be immoral to create one.

I wondered what peoples views are on this and it's implications for simulated universes.

Can it ever be justified to create a universe?

[Nearly Sane]

In my readings on this subject I have read of a moral argument against simulated universes.
That it would be immoral to create one.

I wondered what peoples views are on this and it's implications for simulated universes.

Can it ever be justified to create a universe?

Why would a moral argument have an implication for the simulated universe hypothesis?

Why did whoever you read think it was immoral?

Did they put the case as part of an 'objective' or subjective moral claim?

What is the definition of a 'universe' you are using?

[jeremyp]

In my readings on this subject I have read of a moral argument against simulated universes.
That it would be immoral to create one.

Since when has something being immoral stopped anybody from doing it?

[jeremyp]

Why did whoever you read think it was immoral?

If we assume this Universe is a simulation, we can see that whoever created it was completely immoral because we see enormous quantities of pain and suffering and that's just on this planet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If we assume this Universe is a simulation, we can see that whoever created it was completely immoral because we see enormous quantities of pain and suffering and that's just on this planet.

But if it is a simulation how can we be sure that a) pain and suffering are the only two states worth when there are enormous quantities of health and happiness b) pain and suffering or death are a terminal state for the elements of the simulation which experience them? b) The pain and suffering is in large measure created by the decision of the artificial intelligences within the simulation which are experiencing the pain and suffering?

[jeremyp]

But if it is a simulation how can we be sure that a) pain and suffering are the only two states worth when there are enormous quantities of health and happiness

Normally when we gain happiness at the expense of somebody else's pain and suffering, we are judged disapprovingly.

Are you proposing to change this?

How much happiness does it take to offset a child starving to death because the crops failed?

[Nearly Sane]

If we assume this Universe is a simulation, we can see that whoever created it was completely immoral because we see enormous quantities of pain and suffering and that's just on this planet.

That assumes a morality based on your own subjective axioms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Normally when we gain happiness at the expense of somebody else's pain and suffering, we are judged disapprovingly.

Are you proposing to change this?

How much happiness does it take to offset a child starving to death because the crops failed?

If this is a simulation we are talking about how do we know that death and unhappiness is the permanent lot or end for that child?

[jeremyp]

That assumes a morality based on your own subjective axioms.

What? That suffering is bad? Sue me.

[jeremyp]

If this is a simulation we are talking about how do we know that death and unhappiness is the permanent lot or end for that child?

Are you suggesting that it is OK to inflict pain and suffering as long as the victim gets better?

[Nearly Sane]

What? That suffering is bad? Sue me.

  So you think you have an objective claim?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you suggesting that it is OK to inflict pain and suffering as long as the victim gets better?

Not if you are suggesting that things could go the other way in which case the getting better is just an unintended consequence to inflicting pain and suffering.

[Walter]

Why would a moral argument have an implication for the simulated universe hypothesis?

Why did whoever you read think it was immoral?

Did they put the case as part of an 'objective' or subjective moral claim?

What is the definition of a 'universe' you are using?

Oh!  NS I'm going to love this section   

[Dicky Underpants]

But if it is a simulation how can we be sure that a) pain and suffering are the only two states worth when there are enormous quantities of health and happiness b) pain and suffering or death are a terminal state for the elements of the simulation which experience them? b) The pain and suffering is in large measure created by the decision of the artificial intelligences within the simulation which are experiencing the pain and suffering?

"Time is no healer - the patient is no longer here" T.S. Eliot

"Evil is irredeemable" Jean-Paul Sartre.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Time is no healer - the patient is no longer here" T.S. Eliot

"Evil is irredeemable" Jean-Paul Sartre.

Sartre......is a wankre.

[Sebastian Toe]

Sartre......is a wankre.

'andles is forked!

[SteveH]

it's implications

"its", not "it's". "its" means "belonging to it"; "It's" means "it is" or "it has".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since when has something being immoral stopped anybody from doing it?

I agree with the sentiment of this and certainly the proposal that for some beings simulated universe to the level we experience might be technologically possible does not proceed from any moral argument.

Any absolute morality would be that of the simulator.

As would the purpose of the whole simulation.

Tegmark has said that the underlying purpose of a simulated universe would be interest. Dullness he says might risk deletion so Tegmark suggests we should all be doing interesting things.

That means every regular on religion ethics is doomed.