Yeah, hmm… How would you characterize the pro-life position in a sentence like that? “(c) I don't want to think about that, but certainly once a mind does exist, it must be protected regardless of its level of happiness”?
Oki! Well, we don't have to take the steps [pro-choice analogy] -> [established ethical framework] -> [invertebrates] but can go directly from [pro-choice analogy] -> [invertebrates]. Do you think it's a match without trying to figure out which ethical framework it's closest to?
Hi Dawn. I am glad you have looked into my posts. Here is a comment I just published on EA Forum with some important clarifications (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/L9NZGB7xbxiwgndPk/welfare-biology-and-ai-the-quiz?commentId=wMx8KvXzPBdGMvc9M).
Thank you so much! I'll reply on the EA Forum and probably update my article with quotes from your comment.
You seems to be confusing the person-affecting view with critical-level utilitarianism?
Yeah, hmm… How would you characterize the pro-life position in a sentence like that? “(c) I don't want to think about that, but certainly once a mind does exist, it must be protected regardless of its level of happiness”?
I presume this is for Question 1? The OP's (c) is critical-level utilitarian and this (c) would be person-affecting yes.
I'm also not convinced at all the abortion analogy makes sense either, pro-choicers aren't negative utilitarians.
Oki! Well, we don't have to take the steps [pro-choice analogy] -> [established ethical framework] -> [invertebrates] but can go directly from [pro-choice analogy] -> [invertebrates]. Do you think it's a match without trying to figure out which ethical framework it's closest to?
I don't think the actual ethical questions behind abortion (moral status of fetuses, violonist argument) maps to invertebrate welfare.