Yeah that too LOL panpsychism makes more sense to me. Though I will say that information does need to be integrated into the bound contexts of qualia, so I do think it's necessary, just not sufficient.

This thought experiment can be compared with a real world one.

The (White?) Rhino is an endangered species due to armed horn poachers. Armed Game Wardens, financed by foreign governments and NGO’s, try to stop them, with, I believe, loss of life on both sides.

In this case the humans are willing participants. It doesn’t ‘feel’ wrong to me: either to submit to the risk of death as a warden, or to kill poachers.

Why do we feel repelled by murder in the Panda case, but, somehow, it is justified in the Rhino case?

Is it due to the relative moral weights of Pandas, Rhinos and humans? I don’t think so. The Utilitarian stance of the protagonist seems to be undermined, as it so often is, when we try to justify another human’s murder “For the Greater Good.”

>Humans integrate information between themselves through conversation and collaboration. Is there experience happening as a result? Where? That doesn't make any sense to me...

imo it doesn't make any more or less sense than the same idea for neurons, ions, membrane potentials, neurotransmitters, synaptic clefts etc.

I see the point you're making and also wish I could live in that world. Greater knowledge certainly enables greater empathy. A shit person may very well remain a shit person, but it's hard to see that being the case when the "horse-blinders" of ignorance are taken off. It's also easier to see why win-win scenarios are far superior to win-lose, and how everything in life is relative when you level up your perspective and understanding of how everything is interconnected.

> My thesis is: it's better to have one random human die in this case.

So the resources that one random reasonably affluent person, who is educated, has access to technology, is dependant on resources which could allow possibly hundreds to survive, both human and animal, that person who thinks “it's better to have one random human die in this case.” should not necessarily kill themselves, but certainly not enjoy 'luxuries' of consumerism. So the thesis is contradicted by the person proposing it.

> True, but well, I also never signed a contract saying I consented to paying taxes.

You did in effect it's the social contract. And you are free to drop out anytime. You can then achieve a goal of being not responsible for resources you do not need to live.

The ethics then is, is it ethical to pose such thought experiments, where the consequences are purely hypothetical, and the person proposes a solution that they do not take.

This is solely my own point of view. I would save the human. It is selfish of me, I know. But I find affinity to humans more than other species.

That isn’t really what I’m saying. Shared experience isn’t an equation, but is does tend to be pretty central to social groups. And social groups tend to bond and form mutually beneficial relationships. If we were all able to share in each other’s experiences then It isn’t a stretch to think it would make each of our individual lives more relatable to each other.

The author uses the example of a person’s racism being diminished by learning/downloading Kung Fu. It isn’t a perfect example, but it does illustrate how someone’s bias could be altered through learning a new skill. And if that process of learning were as accessible as the internet and as immediate as a download then it seems that our ability to relate to each other would increase exponentially.

How does knowing imply caring?

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Empathy and knowledge aren’t mutually exclusive. If you were able to download someone (everyone) else’s experiences and gain the understanding of what their life is like it follows that you would be able understand and share their feelings.

>If you can choose which specific human dies (but it can't be someone who wishes to die), does that change your answer?

I think for anyone who would, with the original question, choose to let the pandas die should change for that version. I can think of plenty of people whose death would be a good thing for the world. Putin, for example. If I had a button that would magically kill him, and not do anything else (like saving pandas or whatever), I would push the button. He is presently getting a lot of people killed, and it would be far better if someone had killed him before he started the war against Ukraine. Still, better late than never. It likely would help end the war if he were to die now, and save many lives.

>If we all had a mastery of every known skill, an encyclopedic knowledge of all of history, generations of life experience from all corners of the globe, and a complete understanding of all known sciences, then would we not naturally strive for a just, equitable, and sustainable world for all living things? Would we have boundless empathy, compassion, and wisdom?

No. Empathy is a feeling, not knowledge. People often use the terms "psychopath" or "sociopath" to describe people who lack empathy, though I believe the expression used in psychology today is "antisocial personality disorder." But regardless of what one calls it, a lack of empathy isn't a lack of knowledge.

​

David Hume expressed this rather well with his famous statement:

​

>'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.

https://davidhume.org/texts/t/full

​

For his reasoning on that, one would want to read the material preceding that quote.

If looking at pandas brings humans happiness, then pandas are useful to humans. You are putting pandas in an inferior position to humans, because pandas are inconsensually being used by humans for to look at, therefore, humans are superior to pandas in this way. Humans have more powerful than pandas, which means even just one human can do much more than what all pandas can do together, therefore, it doesn't make sense to kill 1 human (even at random) rather than the whole species of pandas.

Besides all this, I think thinking about this question in a utilitarian way ignores the much bigger question, and that is the question of the value of life.

Both options (killing a random human and killing all pandas) aren't better or worse than the other.

If life itself is valuable, then all life is equally valuable. There is no form of life that is more valuable than another form of life because life itself is valuable. You can't put a number on the value of life either. If you claim that multiple lives are more valuable than one single life, you're saying that the value of life is based on the number of living things, which is contradictory to saying that life itself is valuable. Therefore, both options in aren't better or worse than the other.

Of course, we also have to consider that life has no value in itself. But then it doesn't matter which life you choose to end, because no life is valuable in itself. Therefore, again, both options aren't better or worse than the other.

This proves that killing one random human is not better than killing all pandas, but it's not worse either.

Edit: Thank yoi for taking the time to read this. :)

[deleted]

I'm not sure I agree with 5. How many people is an average person loved by? Let's say their parents, grandparents, children if they have them, a few other people. I'm not sure how many people work in panda conservation, but those people are presumably incredibly invested in keeping the pandas alive.

If i had to pay my own life to save the pandas, then just like there's a magical button that can kill me and make that happen, there better be a magical guarantee that it actually works and doesn't just kill me.

Once i die i can't really go back and say "Hey, you tricked me!".

However, if i had that guarantee, yeah i'd press that button without hesitation - sounds like a great reason to die.

[deleted]

What's the point of this thesis or these supposed ethical dilemmas and emergencies? What exactly are you solving or demonstrating? Do you seriously expect to ever be put into such a situation? If the lesson/idea is you are supposed to sacrifice random individuals for the sake of Pandas then are you living up that ideal? How do you think this would apply to say climate alarmism where environmentalists do claim that the world - including Pandas - are at risk of extinction?

How might you extend your logic? Why stop at Pandas? Why not any other animal or value? What about something unique? Since there's only one Mona Lisa would it be preferable for a person to die than to lose such a treasure? Why stop at one individual? How many people would it not be worth killing off for the sake of your value?

This is the question to ask. Would you still do it if you're the one who has to die? I

It’s an interesting thought experiment. Why I would say to kill all pandas is because I’m almost convinced that Pandas are a human creation. Also, even if they aren’t, they’re going extinct; whether by us or otherwise. And if they are meant to go extinct then they should be let to do so. This experiment would highly accelerate that, but still.

Also, the experiment is hypothetical and mostly silly, so my answer is allowed to be also. I don’t put much stock in pandas. They’re cool looking but they’re kinda dumb.

I think the magnitude of effect there will be is based on proximity to the subject that dies which might actually average out to there being no clear utilitarian choice.

And if you were to start narrowing down criteria for which human dies than it’s no longer random. It’s selective. And that is not good.

Interesting stuff. Why I disagree:

1. Killing a person is murder. Killing pandas is not. Why this is the case? I don't know, it is though.

2. Would you really sacrifice one of your own kind for some random bears?

3. What if it is an important person? What if you kill Xi Jinping and cause WW3?

4. What if the button said: you or the pandas? Would you kill yourself to save the pandas? If not, why not? Do you think of yourself as more important than the average person? I gotta be honest, in that situation I say screw those pandas. And in consequence, I can't murder another person for them, either.

5. I would in fact say that a single person is more important to the happiness of everyone than the species of pandas. Everyone that loves that person would be in terrible pain after their death, and for what? For how long would people really care if the pandas went extinct?

My big problem if what if the one person who will die is someone I know and/or is close to me personally. If I don't know who is going to die beforehand, and it ends up being my wife or child, I'd be eternally sad.

Of course I would choose "all pandas die".

If I choose "a random human dies", there is like 0,000003% probabiltiy (which is low but not so low) that the random human is me, or one of my friends/relatives

What if it is you who will die?

1. And why are you looking at it from a human-centric perspective? Pandas (and all non-human life forms) have value in and of themselves, regardless of their utility to humanity.

All pandas die.

I kind of think we should just let them die out anyway, not a fan.