Why do you think it's morally wrong to do certain things to a tulpa?

[rakov]

First, there are no "morals" in Universe. There are physics and nothing more. Morals are invented by evolution to keep humanity together, sacrifising one's needs for common survival. Therefore, there can be no "final truth" in complicated problems future brings to us.

Second, there is no "sentience". There are more complicated organisms that can interact with world in more complicated and benefiting ways. Humans are far ahead of other animals, so we count us all as sentient and them not, but actually it is just because they can't learn and interact good enough to learn how to make guns to protect their rights. Only way to judge someone's sentience is to look if they can adapt and learn good enough to protect themself.

Therefore, morals can be only supported by two people who potentially can harm each other, but agree not to do it. It is one of the solutions to Prisoner's dillema.

But tulpa can be just created in way it can't (most reliably, because it'll never want to) harm you. Then there is no dillema and no need for morals.

Though I see no need for destroying somebody when you've already put so much work in it. If you have such need, it can really mean tulpa isn't your biggest problem.

Also, it doesn't mean I think tulpas are less than real people. I just think there is no need in morals in this case.

[xtar]

Can you do things that are morally wrong to your left leg? No, not really. A tulpa is part of you, yes you might be able to hurt yourself, depending on how you feel about self harm and morality may determine if that's wrong for you or not.

[Viceroy]

First, there are no "morals" in Universe. There are physics and nothing more. Morals are invented by evolution to keep humanity together, sacrifising one's needs for common survival. Therefore, there can be no "final truth" in complicated problems future brings to us.

Second, there is no "sentience". There are more complicated organisms that can interact with world in more complicated and benefiting ways. Humans are far ahead of other animals, so we count us all as sentient and them not, but actually it is just because they can't learn and interact good enough to learn how to make guns to protect their rights. Only way to judge someone's sentience is to look if they can adapt and learn good enough to protect themself.

Therefore, morals can be only supported by two people who potentially can harm each other, but agree not to do it. It is one of the solutions to Prisoner's dillema.

But tulpa can be just created in way it can't (most reliably, because it'll never want to) harm you. Then there is no dillema and no need for morals.

Though I see no need for destroying somebody when you've already put so much work in it. If you have such need, it can really mean tulpa isn't your biggest problem.

Also, it doesn't mean I think tulpas are less than real people. I just think there is no need in morals in this case.

 

This just in: Evolution invented morals, animals aren't sentient, and the solution to prisoner's "dillemma" [sic] is to play nice

[Linkzelda]

 

This just in: Evolution invented morals, animals aren't sentient, and the solution to prisoner's "dillemma" [sic] is to play nice

 

Yeah, and suddenly he's removed from the invented evolutionary process that created morals since he doesn't believe in subjective morals, or morals in the first place. I guess he's taking nihilism a bit too far along with a creationist twist on evolution.