Ethical implications of tulpas

[waffles]

 

We have yet to clone a person, if I recall correctly. When we do, we will see if they have no rights or not.

Correct. However, there's no information that would be available after then that isn't now that would change the answer to the question. The obvious answer would be 'yes, they have rights' seeing as how they would be as sentient as a 'normal' person.

 

I don't think of Helix, Pixel or Vriska as less than me on a personal level, but looking at the big picture, they are simply constructs of our mind. Doesn't mean they should be treated any less than a regular, physical human, but rather that their non-physical existence should be taken into account when walkin' down da street in your six four and niggas start shootin at you.

It's pretty obvious that their not being physical should be taken into account if attacked by Negroes. However, that has nothing to do with ethical treatment.

How can you justify killing tulpas when they are equal to you? Is it OK for someone to kill you? If not, then why your tulpa when you treat them the same as you?

One could argue that you are both constructs of the mind you inhabit.

 

This frigging guy, man. He decided to try and protect his tulpa from a non physical threat, and got stabbed because of it.

Aww shit.

Not actually relevant to tulpa ethics. Simba's tulpa didn't need protecting because they weren't in danger. Simba didn't make a snap ethical judgement and decide that his tulpa was worth as much as his own life, he was just a complete idiot.

T - "That's fucking stupid"

 

I'm sorry, what? When did my parents kill me?

That should probably be worded 'and would not justify killing you'. My point was that just because 'you' can be brought back, it doesn't make it OK to kill you.

[Guest Anonymous]

Correct. However, there's no information that would be available after then that isn't now that would change the answer to the question. The obvious answer would be 'yes, they have rights' seeing as how they would be as sentient as a 'normal' person.

Have you read The Scorpion King? It deals with these issues, at least partially, on clone rights.

 

 

It's pretty obvious that their not being physical should be taken into account if attacked by Negroes. However, that has nothing to do with ethical treatment.

How can you justify killing tulpas when they are equal to you? Is it OK for someone to kill you? If not, then why your tulpa when you treat them the same as you?

One could argue that you are both constructs of the mind you inhabit.

 

Aww shit.

Not actually relevant to tulpa ethics. Simba's tulpa didn't need protecting because they weren't in danger. Simba didn't make a snap ethical judgement and decide that his tulpa was worth as much as his own life, he was just a complete idiot.

T - "That's fucking stupid"

In my opinion, tulpas are and aren't equal, for reasons stated before. Something to consider is consent. In the case of Armin Meiwes, the victim was okay with being eaten alive by Armin. Is that okay for society? No, as Armin's conviction proved. But between those two men, it was fine. So let me relate this to tulpas. Unless you've been living under a rock, FAQ_Man dissolved his tulpas. May I point out that FAQ said that they all agreed on it? Did the community have its jimmies rustled over it? I'd say yes. But I feel that it was his and his tulpas choice, and we shouldn't judge.

 

Also, you asked:

Do you think tulpas are inherently equal to hosts? What about deserving of equal treatment?

As Simba has proven, we shouldn't consider them equal when among other people, but on a tulpa-host basis, you could.

 

 

That should probably be worded 'and would not justify killing you'. My point was that just because 'you' can be brought back, it doesn't make it OK to kill you.

 

Why not? What if I've done something horrible, so much that the only real "control-z" to the situation is to kill me and make a clone of me, one who didn't commit those things.

[waffles]

Have you read The Scorpion King? It deals with these issues, at least partially, on clone rights.

On searching, I can't find anything by the title of 'The Scorpion King' that appears to deal with clone rights.

 

In my opinion, tulpas are and aren't equal, for reasons stated before. Something to consider is consent. In the case of Armin Meiwes, the victim was okay with being eaten alive by Armin. Is that okay for society? No, as Armin's conviction proved. But between those two men, it was fine. So let me relate this to tulpas. Unless you've been living under a rock, FAQ_Man dissolved his tulpas. May I point out that FAQ said that they all agreed on it? Did the community have its jimmies rustled over it? I'd say yes. But I feel that it was his and his tulpas choice, and we shouldn't judge.

I know of FAQ_man's actions. Bear in mind that the German still got life for what he did, and for reason.

The truth is that, like Meiwes, we cannot verify that FAQ's tulpas gave consent. FAQ said it, sure, and I don't really doubt him. But that doesn't mean that his story is verifiable. Bear in mind that here we have two further levels between us and victims' consent: the forum and their being tulpas.

Again, I'm not saying that his tulpas gave consent. But if tulpas were treated equally to people, and legally protected as such, then he would have got life.

 

You still haven't fully justified your dual view on equality here, either.

 

Also, you asked:

As Simba has proven, we shouldn't consider them equal when among other people, but on a tulpa-host basis, you could.

Simba's incident had little to do with tulpa ethics, and I'll restate why:

The tulpa was not itself in danger. What happened was not Simba putting his life on the line for his tulpa, but Simba risking both for no good reason.

Equal treatment among others would be more along the lines of verbal abuse. If someone insulted you horrifically, and insulted your tulpa to the same extent, do the tulpa's feelings not matter but yours do?

 

Why not? What if I've done something horrible, so much that the only real "control-z" to the situation is to kill me and make a clone of me, one who didn't commit those things.

That's not the point. My point was that since your clone is not you, creating one is not the same as bringing you back.

Applied back to tulpas: when you kill your tulpa and then re-instate them, what you are likely doing is a sort of 'restore from backup'; that is, you essentially recreate your tulpa from what remains in your memory from the creation process (everything). This would mean that it is not the same tulpa, just a clone. You have killed a sentient being, but are not bringing back the same being.

The ultimate point being that the comparison to abortion (during the creation process) and to killing (otherwise) stands.

[Purlox]

I think that hosts and mindfolk are equal, because both can have personality traits, preferences, opinions, they also are able to do exactly the same what the other can etc. (I wrote an article on this, so if you want to know my opinion better, then you should read it) And of course if they are equal, then they deserve equal treatment and rights.

 

You aren't created within them unless you define a person with the necessity of having a physical body, but then that would mean that all consciousnesses in that body are regarded as one collective person. I personally wouldn't mind being created in the body of someone else and have to live along with him, because it has many advantages to be in the mental world and if I ever want to use the body, then we can arrange some deal about who can use the body when and etc.

 

What do you regard as botched creation? Dissipating a mindfolk is exactly like killing any other person in my opinion as they (at least) partially die after being dissipated and mindfolk have right to live as well.

[CyberD]

It's a difficult issue to discuss because the community has so many differing opinions based on how they view their own tulpa.

I can't speak for anyone else but I'll have a go at speaking my own views on it.

I don't consider my tulpa to be equal to me. I treat him has best I can but because he isn't a human the treatment he requires is different from that a person needs. To me it's apples and oranges. The unwritten code of ethics I uphold with Nova provides a stable environment for us to communicate rationally and with no fear of him being dissolved or "killed". Our relationship is one designed for success where we focus on achievements and largely ignore outside influences that might get in the way of that.

 

But, as soon as you start looking beyond yourself and your own tulpa you start to become judgmental. I personally avoid that. I don't apply my own code of ethics to other people. I don't care what they do with their tulpa. They can dissolve, clone or abuse their tulpa all they want. It's not my place to judge or criticize but should someone and their tulpa want help or advice I'm happy to give it.

 

If I were a tulpa (addressing the question way back in the first post)

I don't think I'd have a problem with it. I'd be grateful for a chance at life and should I dislike the host then I'd try to work out a way to fix that.

 

Botched creation? Can you really botch the creation of a tulpa? It comes back to being judgmental. The tulpa is what it is and the host can spend time to work on (and hopefully resolve) any perceived issues with the tulpa.

[Hush]

Tangent: What is more deserving of human rights, a Terri Schiavo-esque vegetable, or a sentient computer program?

Just a way to think about where you feel rights should come from.

IMO tulpa=human once developed, the original consciousness has rights to the physical body by default, but can cede whatever rights it wants to the tulpa. The tulpa has the right to exist as much as the original consciousness, and the right to choose to end its existence(and ask for help in doing so) if it wishes.

[Lolimancer]

Treating them as equals. Don't particularly care what people do with them. Not planning on keeping them entirely inside my head if they wish not to (in fact i don't care too much about keeping my body entirely to myself, the mental world sounds interesting as hell. Not going to permanently switch either though, i would feel sorry for the tupper - for the same reason i personally find procreation unethical).

[Guest Anonymous]

I'd like to see my opinion on this after Helix, Pixel and Vriska are fully sentient and vocal, versus the current not-equal opinion I hold.

[glitchthe3rd]

i personally find procreation unethical).

 

If procreation is unethical then we'd all better stop making tulpae.

[Lolimancer]

Tuppers can live the NEET wonderland life, humans can't. Basically.