Ethical scenario: assume that we are an ancestor simulation, virtual copies of real individuals...?

Question

We're each programmed with memories & personalities from real-world originals and it is vital for the simulation that we make most of the same life choices that our originals made. If too many of us stray from the course of history as it originally unfolded, the simulation will have to be terminated and all simulated replicants - each conscious and self-aware - destroyed.

Now suppose you are one of the few to learn of this state of affairs, and furthermore you find out that your real-world self became a serial killer at some point. In order for the simulation to turn out correctly, you have to kill the virtual copies of at least certain key individuals as your original did, but as you are a consciuos being, you happen to have developed in a different direction than the original and the thought of murder repulses you (if it really doesn't, pretend).

Would you do it in order to keep the entire simulation from crashing and all virtual inhabitants destroyed?

You found out through a glitch in the system, and the operators of the simulation have put it on hold to query you on this - if you agree to cooperate with their goals - meaning you'll eventually have to murder innocent, sentient individuals - the simulation will continue. If not, it will be destroyed.

...and to be clear, it isn't that the operators are evil people who want you to murder - their focus isn't on the fact that they would be murders, but that they would be how the original history unfolded. It wouldn't matter if your original self donned a tutu and bounded down main street in its best rendition of "Swan Lake", that's what you would have to do. As it is, your original self just happens to have been an evil f*** who murdered innocent people.

Answer 1

This question highlights the flaw with purely deontological or virtue-theoretic ethical programmes: that they have a further, more fundamental justification - a consequentialist one.

I favour a form of consequentialism (not straight utilitarianism of any sort) and under my system this thought experiment becomes analogous to the out of control trolley scenario where one must decide whether to act and cause the death of a person OR to refrain from action and witness the deaths of five. That is to say, the people in the scenario you describe are, in all meaningful ways, all people and if it is true that billions will suffer the worst (i.e. death [for death as a colossal suffering see Julian Lamont's papers listed below ]) if you don't kill a few then clearly you should kill a few. Yes you bring about a badness (the deaths of some) but you also prevent a clamitous badness (the deaths of many/all) and faciltiate an immeasurable good - the continued lives of others.

Now, if this question were framed so that the choice you have to make is between your desire (action so as to make the world a meaningfully good place to live for all people rather than the wealthy few) and the actions that were taken in the world running the simulation (i.e. to maintain broad sections of life in abhorent states of suffering, abject misery and derilect oppression) then the choice would be much more unpleasant. Of course, running the kind of simulation you suggest is itself ethically abhorent - unless, I suppose, the past was far more felicitous than the future, but if that were true, why not let them continue to enjoy their lives so the world can have at least some happy people in it, or even better, use the resources of the simulation to improve the lot of the world and forget about the simulation.

Answer 2

Demons are real but I do not know if they can be called upon. About 19 years ago, when I was 16 years old, I was prayed over by a Pastor and many demons came out of me. Once he started praying I could feel how evil they were. No human ever lived could compare to that evil, not even Hitler. Once the demons were forced out of me by the Holy Spirit through the Pastor I was led by the Pastor in prayer to ask for Jesus to forgive my sin and to be my Lord and Savior. It was at this moment that I felt that Gods presence filled the room and I believe I was filled with the Holy Spirit at that time. It was the best feeling on Earth. It was a love that you could feel. It was addicting. No wonder we will praising the Lord for eternity because we will want to worship him for how holy He is because we will feel it. Don t spend much time looking into demonic activity, because it will probably take you places you don t want to go, which is why I believe the Bible doesn t go into detail about such things. I suggest spending your time searching for the truth. Search for this whole heartedly as there can only be one truth. The Lord says if you seek me you will find me if you seek me with ALL of your heart.

Answer 3

I'm a strong believer of Machiavelli's "the end justifies the means" so even though murder would repulse and sicken me, I would have to force myself to commit those murders to save my own life and everybody else's.

Good question, though (and possibly a homework assignment for Philosophy 1010 Critical Thinking or some such thing) and I think it all boils down to the question if you are willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good.

Regardless of that though, while you would sacrifice your own life and other people's lives (though virtual), I guess you would find some peace in knowing that you saved the world.

Answer 4

I am guessing that you are thinking too much after you watched Matrix

In the case you illustrated, I will do it nonetheless... since killing in this sense has no meaning anymore, but just to eliminate copies of other simulation.

Answer 5

Okay, so the question is whether I have an obligation to kill those people to save the rest.

Wouldn't that mean that if they were confronted with the same facts that they'd have an obligation to commit suicide to save the rest?

This is what I really find amusing about Philosophy. It asks really stupid questions and expects intelligent answers.

Answer 6

I have no idea where the data to support this "ethical scenario" could be found, but it seems so convoluted, and conflicted, I'm curious if this is your premise, or one of your professors. If anyone can provide a rational response, I will be surprised.

Answer 7

Sounds like a bad Matrix sequel.

I choose to lead a rebellion against the programmers and free those enslaved to the program. (Sounds like a hokey storyline from a bad Matrix sequel.)

Answer 8

destroy it all