Re: The nature of obligation

From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 19:27:20 MST


Anders Sandberg wrote:

> It is also possible to leave a copyhood legally. After that point
> the individual is to be regarded as an independent person. Debts
> and obligations have to be resolved beforehand (or it won't be a
> legal divorce), and the relevant part of the copyhood's assets
> has to be paid to the leaving member.

If we adopt this view, then we're still on the road to ruin. Again,
consider the serial suicide-murderer. Suppose the murderer (with the
intent to kill) spawns a copy, who then legally leaves the copyhood,
[perhaps he'd have to file a statement or something,] commits a
murder, and kills himself.

If we took the copy's "leaving the copyhood" seriously in a court of law,
then I don't see how we could hold the copyhood responsible for the copy's
actions.

I therefore conclude that we ought *not* to permit leaving the copyhood;
that we ought to treat the entire copyhood as a single moral entity.

-Dan

      -unless you love someone-
    -nothing else makes any sense-
           e.e. cummings



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:53 MST