From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@MSX.UPMC.EDU)
Date: Sun Jun 03 2001 - 11:07:17 MDT
Harvey Newsrtrom wrote:
The point is not that the new copy is invalid, unconscious or wrong. The
point is that the old copy is *also* still valid, conscious and "me". As
such, the old copy does not want to be killed. I am my own original, and
I
have a right to say don't kill me. How can anyone argue with that? How
can
anyone argue that shooting me in the head is suddenly OK just because of
some new bioexperiment someone created somewhere else that looks a lot
like
me?
The objection that killing the original is bad is not solved by pointing
out
how good not killing the copy is. These are unrelated issues. No matter
how perfect the copy is, this original still does not want to die.
## The original of a teleportaphobic would scream. It would be wrong to
teleport him against his own will. My original, a teleportation fan,
wouldn't mind and it would be perfectly OK to disassemble it. Under certain
circumstances I wouldn't mind being cut open, my heart ripped out and
discarded (if I have a heart transplant). Teleportation would go just a
little bit further.
This reminds me a another ethical controversy - there are people who refuse
to have blood transfusions, citing some wild philosophical/religious
hypotheses as the reason. It would be wrong to transfuse them against their
will, even if it means certain death. Besides, they think they are going to
heaven. But this doesn't prevent the majority of us from using this marvel
of modern medicine.
Rafal Smigrodzki MD-PhD
Dept Neurology University of Pittsburgh
smigrodzkir@msx.upmc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:55 MST