Moral responsibility

Presuppose the actual existence of infinite parallel universes.

Let's imagine they are 'generated' at a rate of X per Planck-second per number of extant universes, where X is the number of possible outcomes of any given quantum-level event (or whatever). The point being that they are literally infinite in number and range.

Imagine a machine which allows you to travel between these alternate universes. But not simply one to the other and back again. Imagine a wearable device which, once powered on, simply and seamlessly transports you to the nearest suitable parallel universe where whatever condition you're seeking to satisfy happens to obtain.

By this I mean: You want to fugg Emma Watson. But you can't simply be transported to a universe where you're nailing Emma Watson. There are specific things you have in mind (or don't have in mind) and you must have or avoid them. So the device transports you from new universe to new universe with every action you take, narrowing down the possibilities until the exact moment you turn the device off, at which point you are occupying the only universe in all of existence which satisfies the particular conditions you've created.

Are you morally responsible for your actions while wearing the device? Why or why not?

I've found life is more enjoyable when you don't spend all day contemplating pointless moral quandaries.

People do things they shouldn't regardless of whether or not they'd be responsible for their actions all the time. Here's my recommendation for solving your problem:

>Get a job NEET

The internet: where not caring isn't enough, you have to tell everyone you don't care.

Yes

Why, though? You're simply transferring your sensorium to a universe that already existed. You're not causing things to happen which would not otherwise have happened.

>Are you morally responsible for your actions while wearing the device?
If you murder a bunch of people, you'll be legally responsible and that's what I care about, for our safety.

Dear Veeky Forums
Please stop
Love, Veeky Forums

Will I, though? I mean, "I" will be transported back to my initial home universe once I switch off the device. The many thousands of versions of me through whose universes I traveled will be held legally responsible within those universes. But for me it's just Tuesday.

Dear Veeky Forums
No
Love, Veeky Forums

>you have to tell everyone you don't care
I do care user. Just not about your question. You do know you don't gain anything from sitting around all day contemplating impossible hypothetical scenarios?

For your own health. Please go do something productive.

Dude, I know - someone is thinking about something you don't enjoy thinking about. You've got to shut that down right quick, or who knows what might happen?

For the record, I have a job and in my experience, time spent thinking about things that interest you is far better spent than time spent trying in vain to police Liberian papier-mache websites.

Hello Veeky Forums,

Thanks for visiting us at Veeky Forums. I understand you're having issues with some of the content here and believe me we are too. If you'd like to stop the pointless pseudo-philosophical blabbering of teenage basement philosophers please make a suggestion to the Veeky Forums board admins and moderators.

Thanks,

Veeky Forums

Those were the versions that carried out the actions that lead to the state of things onto which you arrived. Unless I'm misunderstanding the premise?

The people in those universes were you up to the point there was divergence and they carry on with their lives while "you" slip into a different timeline. Isn't that it?

Maybe I wasn't clear, sorry.

In universe A, you are about to activate the device.

In universe B, you are about to punch a beggar in the face, unprovoked - this version of you simply likes punching people.

A-you really wants to punch a beggar in the face, and activates the device. The device transports your 'mind' (whatever that is exactly) to the B-universe, where you temporarily occupy the mental space of B-you. You then punch the beggar in the face, switch off the device and return to your initial universe. B-you returns to consciousness/control with the clear certain impression of having done exactly what B-you wanted to do, with nothing out of the ordinary having happened.

>For the record, I have a job and in my experience
Getting defensive pretty quick there bud. You have fun with your thread no one seems to want engage in. Break time is over for me.

Bye!

Yeah, that's what I figured. That version would've done it anyway and it will carry on as if it did it out of it's own volition. Even if there is some sort of "soul" jumping around, that guy is still a menace.

Well yeah, B-you is clearly a dick, who the fuck punches people for no reason? What I'm asking is whether A-you shares in the moral responsibility for the action, and why or why not as the case may be.

So what you're saying is person-A and person-B are technically separate people. I'd say you're still going to be liable for what the other has done.

Much like with Star Trek transporter technology. It's been proposed that when you're transported the person who comes out the other side of the transport isn't actually you but an exact copy of you (kinda how that got two William Rikers from a transport accident in TNG).

Just like the exact copy is judged based on the actions of a person that technically isn't them I imagine in your scenario you'd be "guilty" as well.

OK, but how? What happened would have happened even if I'd never turned the device on.

It would've happened regardless of A. It happened because of B. So B is to blame.

A might be dangerous since he likes punching people apparently but I'd just keep watch on him, see if he actually initiates any violent acts, rather than just stepping in the shoes of violent people.

Yes, because you choose to push the button.

>Presuppose the actual existence of infinite parallel universes.
Stopped caring about anything being discussed here.

Presuppose the existence of unicorns and fairies and maybe I'll be more inclined to have a discussion with you.

> he believes in reduction of the wave function!

OK. Is this because I am the kind of person who wants to do the things I do after I push the button? And if so, am I not equally blameworthy even if I don't push the button?

After all, if I simply happen to live in a universe where I don't have access to the button, but am otherwise identical, then nothing about my desires and preferences has changed.

Funnily enough, I did consider posing this in terms of a wizard being able to transport you, but I thought it sounded a bit silly. It's just a premise designed to facilitate interrogating our moral intuitions, what's the problem?

#copenhagen4lyfe #ylalinot

thought experiments like these is why anglo philosophy is a joke

Yes, because they're humans in their universe, too, what with the free will and whatnot. Unless you are some kind of narcissist that supposes that only his particular selection of humans are da best.

This thought experiment is silly and really doesn't prompt much discussion. Can you delete this thread, senpai?

>Yes, because they're humans in their universe, too, what with the free will and whatnot. Unless you are some kind of narcissist that supposes that only his particular selection of humans are da best.

I don't understand this at all, can you explain it a bit more?

There is one (1) guy who (a) hates the ever-loving shit out of this thread and (b) is unaware of or indifferent to the unique posters counter. Man. Wow.

Yeah, it wasn't particularly explained well. It's a simple concept anyway -

The question is whether or not you would be morally responsible for your actions.

Assume two timelines. One is where you say the word 'dog' while reading this post. The other is where you say nothing. Those are now two divergent universes; one in which you said dog and one in which you didn't.

If a man were to come and punch you in the face in either timeline shortly thereafter, that would be morally wrong. The fact that timelines are divergent doesn't remove the idea of morality, and saying that you AREN'T morally responsible for your actions is basically the same as saying that all humans outside of your original timeline are irrelevant and/or you don't care. This is retarded, because there's no difference between the two of you except for the fact that you said 'dog' five seconds ago.

Even if you produced a universe where punching a man in the face for saying the word 'dog' is acceptable while wearing this helmet, it's only so because you were wearing the helmet and adjusted the circumstances so you could end up in this timeline. Your original ethics - the ones you had when you put on the helmet - still apply, and anything you do that is 'wrong' in that capacity makes them immoral.

Yeah I must have explained it pretty poorly because nothing you've said there actually reflects what I was getting at.

>saying that you AREN'T morally responsible for your actions is basically the same as saying that all humans outside of your original timeline are irrelevant and/or you don't care.

No, this just isn't getting it at all, this is actually just about the opposite of what I'm posing. We're imagining that I briefly visit universes in which alternative versions of me do things, and the question is whether or not I am responsible for doing those things if my agency during my visit to that universe causes them to come about. In particular, we're asking how I can be responsible for them given that they would happen in exactly the same way even if the proposed device never existed.

Clearly (and I mean I've said this earlier in the thread) the version of me that's native to the universe I'm visiting is responsible for doing whatever I've visited that universe to experience doing. But, the problem suggests, given that the moral responsibility for those actions is already correctly ascribed to that version of me, how can it be that I share in that responsibility?

Forgot about the last paragraph, sorry -

>Your original ethics - the ones you had when you put on the helmet - still apply, and anything you do that is 'wrong' in that capacity makes them immoral.

I asked someone else about this position earlier: Am I not, therefore, equally blameworthy even if I don't put on the helmet? Aren't all versions of me which would do what I did, but simply happen not to have helmets, equally blameworthy?

Bump. Any takers from the day shift?