In general, the primary criteria you use to determine if it's okay or not to kill a living thing is how much _____ it has
- Intelligence21.7%
- Capacity for suffering47.8%
- Human DNA9.1%
- Value to humans21.4%
6,313 votesFinal results
106
80
104
Conversation
Intelligence voters: pigs vs. babies?
Suffering voters: okay to kill people who've wireheaded?
Human DNA voters: what about the inevitable future when human DNA starts getting modified?
Value to human voters: I don't know the question for this but I'm open to suggestions
Replying to
You said "primary criteria" not "only criteria", is the answer to every question.
1
17
Replying to
Value to humans: People who are fully disabled/unable to function in any capacity
1
6
Replying to
Inteligence voter here.
This isnt a black and white problem. The inteligence that it has at the moment and it future possible inteligence both are at play.
A fetus which has not attained sentience is lesser then a baby, but both greater then a pig.
1
3
Replying to
Potential for intelligence perhaps with babies vs pigs, but beyond here lie monsters in the joys of eugenics discussions. But my calculus lies in a nexus between these, involving danger, intelligence, and value.
Human DNA is meaningless. Ask a soldier, or better, ask a cop.
1
Replying to
Int voter: we count potential as well as current intelligence.
And its only my primary; I use all the others as well.
1
Replying to
"okay to kill people who've wireheaded?"
No, you'd be foreclosing a lot of potential value.
1
6
Replying to
I voted "suffering".
Humans can have desires and a will to live even if they don't feel pain.
So basically rather than phrasing it "capacity for suffering" I'd say "will to live".
2