Huh. My intuition is that inflicting suffering on a conscious being at bad no matter whether they remember it or not, whether there is someone to regret it or not. Like in the end we're all going to die and our memories are going to get lost. Making us suffer was still wrong in retrospect.
There is this dude whom the Nolan movie Memento was based on. He can't form long term memories anymore and forgets anything new after like ten minutes. If I were to kidnap and torture him a bit and return him home it would be like if nothing happened in half an hour. Still seem like an incredibly shitty thing to do.
If analyse the whole thing from the perspective of simple negative utilitarianism (where the only rule is to minimise suffering) you get a sort of antinatalism. There's no point of ressurecting people because dead people can't suffer while ressurected might, even without considering additional suffering during simulation.
If go with usual utilitarianism (maximise pleasure minus suffering) you might be compelled to ressurect people considering you new world will give them more net pleasure than the suffering they experience in simulation. On the other hand in the framework like this it would make more sense just to make (or clone) more people conventional way because those people would not have to deal with painful simulation to get born.
A recently popular form is preference utilitarianism. The idea is maximising not pleasure specifically but getting people what they think they want. Like if I decided I wanted to be hit in the balls the ethical action is to hit me in the balls even if you're sure it will only cause me suffering. In this context you'd have to ask the future ressurecty whether they want to deal with all the shit in the simulation to be reborn in the cool utopian future. Obviously if the person didn't leave a specific will you'd have to run them through the simulation to ask them this question which in itself would be a contradiction.
Huh. My intuition is that inflicting suffering on a conscious being at bad no matter whether they remember it or not, whether there is someone to regret it or not. Like in the end we're all going to die and our memories are going to get lost. Making us suffer was still wrong in retrospect.
There is this dude whom the Nolan movie Memento was based on. He can't form long term memories anymore and forgets anything new after like ten minutes. If I were to kidnap and torture him a bit and return him home it would be like if nothing happened in half an hour. Still seem like an incredibly shitty thing to do.
If analyse the whole thing from the perspective of simple negative utilitarianism (where the only rule is to minimise suffering) you get a sort of antinatalism. There's no point of ressurecting people because dead people can't suffer while ressurected might, even without considering additional suffering during simulation.
If go with usual utilitarianism (maximise pleasure minus suffering) you might be compelled to ressurect people considering you new world will give them more net pleasure than the suffering they experience in simulation. On the other hand in the framework like this it would make more sense just to make (or clone) more people conventional way because those people would not have to deal with painful simulation to get born.
A recently popular form is preference utilitarianism. The idea is maximising not pleasure specifically but getting people what they think they want. Like if I decided I wanted to be hit in the balls the ethical action is to hit me in the balls even if you're sure it will only cause me suffering. In this context you'd have to ask the future ressurecty whether they want to deal with all the shit in the simulation to be reborn in the cool utopian future. Obviously if the person didn't leave a specific will you'd have to run them through the simulation to ask them this question which in itself would be a contradiction.