Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rejectednocomments t1_iwgzn27 wrote

Utilitarianism is not the only option though.

7

Squark09 OP t1_iwib9fu wrote

Utilitarianism is the only option if you believe in the reality of consciousness, that it is valenced and reject closed individualism

0

rejectednocomments t1_iwibqx8 wrote

What do you mean by consciousness being valenced, and what do you mean by closed individualism?

1

Squark09 OP t1_iwidy43 wrote

Valenced means it can be intrinsically good or bad, suffering is intrinsically bad, joy is intrinsically good.

Closed individualism (nice description from https://qri.org/glossary ): "In its most basic form, this is the common-sense personal identity view that you start existing when you are born and stop existing when you die. According to this view each person is a different subject of experience with an independent existence. One can believe in a soul ontology and be a Closed Individualist at the same time, with the correction that you exist as long as your soul exists, which could be the case even before or after death."

0

Nickesponja t1_iwj1pit wrote

It seems like the majority of people would accept closed individualism and would therefore have no use for this argument.

3

Truenoiz t1_iwqzned wrote

Deontology with non-malfeasance as a primary virtue is a stronger option- you don't even need to assume several precepts to make it so.

1