From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 07:05:11 MST
Dan Fabulich wrote:
> I argue that the answer is that we should treat all the
> copies/dupes/forks/etc. as if they acted as a single moral entity.
That makes no sense to me, unless you are prepared to argue that each of the
forks lacks free-will to choose for themselves the proper and legal course
of action in a given situation.
> The answer, I think, lies in the fact that people could *choose* to make
> copies of themselves. To the extent that this is possible, we wouldn't
> want to let people get away with forking off a copy to do something that
> they don't want to be held accountable for, then reaping the benefits of
> their forked copy without paying any penalty.
People can already choose to make children. Those children are responsible
for their own actions after they reach legal age. Similarly, a fork "born"
of legal age would decide for himself whether or not to do your bidding. If
you coerced him to act unlawfully then you would be guilty of extortion or
worse.
Surely each adult person should be considered a free and independent agent,
regardless of origin (fork or womb). Our entire system of justice is based
on this principle.
> Consider the worst case scenario in a system in which copies are not
> responsible for each others' actions:
But that is the best case scenario!
In a free society no person should be punished for another person's crimes!
The administration of justice will be more difficult after the advent of
forking, but both the prosecution *and* the defense will encounter similar
problems. I think these are just some of the many new challenges we'll face
when the time comes.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:53 MST