Simon Paynton wrote:
It sounds like the guy didn’t know he was hurting people by ghosting them, when he should have done, because he was. Maybe British people are used to it, it’s normal to them, so they expect it. He had a failure of empathy (cognitive perspective-taking) driven by a lack of empathic concern (caring). He should have cared eno…

[Read more]

He had a failure of empathy (cognitive perspective-taking) driven by a lack of empathic concern (caring).  He should have cared enough about someone he w…[Read more]

To give you an idea of how prevalent ghosti g is in Scotland, I had chatted with a lad for 5 weeks, almost daily.…[Read more]

TheEncogitationer wrote:
Oh, and “ghosting” bills you’ve voluntarily assumed is a shit move, especially with Medical professionals who are oath-bound to “First, do no harm” and to sustain human life.

At least make payment arrangements and pay what little you can until it’s all knocked out. No debt lasts to infinity unless you never pay it.

[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
At any given time, I’d say 20% of daters get about 80% of the action. The people everyone wants to be with. They will ghost you and not even think about.

I once saw a piece about a guy who claimed to have sex with different women several times a week. His secret: Just hang out, develop a quick rapport, and ask them up front, “…[Read more]

Oh, and “ghosting” bills you’ve voluntarily assumed is a shit move, especially with Medical professionals who are oath-bound to “First, do no harm” and to sustain human life.

At least make payment arrangements and pay what little you can until it’s all knocked out. No debt lasts to infinity unless you never pay it.

I ghosted a few girls early on, but the town was too small, and it came back to me. So better just to give them the good news, LOL.

If it’s just incompatibility about goals, itenerary, chemistry, or styles, then, yes, courtesy and forthright communication is a good way to deal with breaking up and going separate ways.

However, if someome does something that wrecklessly or deliberately deceives and harms you, you have no obligation to “telegraph your…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
In this scenario, are you maybe doing something rude but not morally wrong? Or is it wrong?

I don’t think you can extricate the answer to that question from the context. Let’s see what I mean with a few examples. How would you analyze these hypotheticals if I behaved in these ways?

I come in contact with a woman through a dating…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
In this scenario, are you maybe doing something rude but not morally wrong? Or is it wrong?

It’s reasonable to politely ask to be treated as a human being, and not an ant or a fly.  If nothing else, it might improve the other person’s behaviour in the future.

You wrote:

Q2: That one’s tougher, like the trolly car conundrum. I’m basically utilitarian by nature, so I’d probably say yes, move aside you miserable lot, but not loudly enough for them to hear it or anything that’s coming before we eliminate them. (There’s still a we here, in on this decision together, right?)

This reminds me. …[Read more]

Q1. I would say No. Even if you studied them, you are seeing them through your own limitations and values. It is the “prime directive” in the Star Trek series… they constantly violate it.

“General Order 1”, and the “non-interference directive” is a guiding principle of Starfleet, prohibiting its members from interfering with the internal…

[Read more]

These kinds of ethical questions are always irksome.  If one doesn’t grant the premise of the question, how can one answer it?

Surely a species cannot live a life of complete suffering or it would be too immobilized to do life-sustaining, reproducing acts and would eventually become extinct.

Also, even waste products of a species have…[Read more]

If these creatures could indeed be re-engineered to suffer much less and yet still continue be able to somewhat adapt to this barely ever changing planet…would you consider enabling this? If you had the choice between a little less suffering (totally pointless suffering) but a tiny chance to develop intelligence would you…[Read more]

just because we can’t “conceive” of a way…does that necessarily preclude a path to advancement

Robert that is an extremely good point (one of the few nitpicking with this scenario that is as interesting as the actual answers themselves). I would say that this would have to be part of the risk assessment formula. Even if we cannot fathom how the…[Read more]

I do wonder…just because we can’t “conceive” of a way…does that necessarily preclude a path to advancement and betterment…[Read more]

“General Order 1”, and the “non-interference directive” is a guiding principle of Starfleet, prohibiting its members from interfering with the internal and…[Read more]

In this case, there would be a loss of scientific knowledge we could gain through studying the planet’s life.  This would be regrettable.

Q2: That one’s tougher, like the trolly car c…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
Oh dear. It seems my reply also disappeared.

LOL, I’ve come late to the spam party. Awesome to see this happen.

Thank you Kristina for actually answering the question. I particularly like:

the preservation of life doesn’t, on its own, trump reduction in suffering

Davis wrote:
There is zero possibility they will ever evolve sentience (or develop beyond a planet of suffering creatures).

I’m a little puzzled. How do these creatures suffer at all if, indeed, they have yet to evolve sentience, given that “sentience” means “the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively” (from Wikipedia)?

Perhaps…[Read more]

Q1: Would I?
Yes, in this hypothetical scenario. The chief consideration is that the preservation of life doesn’t, on its own, trump reduction in suffering.

Q2: Would resource benefits at the expense of the…[Read more]

Pleasure is part of the tool box that has emerged in Earthly evolution as an aid to natural selection. For non-sentient beings I don’t think pleasure and pain are particularly balanced they both play different roles in natural selection. But there is no reason why pleasure MUST be a part of evolution.…[Read more]

Is not “suffering less” equivalent to “pleasure”?  Pleasure is a motivator because it indicates moving towards fitness benefits.

Davis wrote:
Well…at least you answered the question lol Sounds like the perfect solution. Shall we just freeze 100 humans and wait for aliens to come visit, revive us and fix all our problems?

I think we can allow for a diverse population of 100 million humans from all across the planet and the environment would still recover. It’s one “…[Read more]