Executive summary: This exploratory essay argues that John Rawls’ veil of ignorance, when interpreted through certain theories of personal identity, provides a realistic ethical framework that grounds sentientism—the moral relevance of all sentient beings—and helps resolve the is/ought problem by compelling compassion and evidence-based action toward reducing suffering universally.
Key points:
Rawls’ veil of ignorance, traditionally a thought experiment for justice among humans, gains deeper ethical significance if extended to all sentient beings by considering different theories of personal identity.
The author discusses three views on personal identity—Closed Individualism (the standard “one lifetime” self), Empty Individualism (consciousness as discrete time-slices), and Open Individualism (all consciousness as one)—showing how each supports a broad ethical concern beyond oneself.
Under Closed and Empty Individualism, being “behind the veil” means we could be any sentient being, so rational self-interest encourages reducing suffering for all, since we might end up experiencing it ourselves.
Open Individualism implies an even stronger ethical stance, where caring for others is identical to caring for oneself, reinforcing universal compassion.
Sentientism, defined as prioritizing evidence, reason, and compassion for all conscious experiences, provides a compelling response to the is/ought problem by linking actual experiences of suffering (is) to the moral imperative to alleviate it (ought).
The essay clarifies that this framing is a conceptual and ethical map, not a literal metaphysical claim about souls or consciousness existing before birth, and highlights implications for individual and collective moral action, including AI alignment.
The author aims to establish sentientism as a grounded ethical framework, inviting further discussion and refinement, especially in relation to future AI ethics.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory essay argues that John Rawls’ veil of ignorance, when interpreted through certain theories of personal identity, provides a realistic ethical framework that grounds sentientism—the moral relevance of all sentient beings—and helps resolve the is/ought problem by compelling compassion and evidence-based action toward reducing suffering universally.
Key points:
Rawls’ veil of ignorance, traditionally a thought experiment for justice among humans, gains deeper ethical significance if extended to all sentient beings by considering different theories of personal identity.
The author discusses three views on personal identity—Closed Individualism (the standard “one lifetime” self), Empty Individualism (consciousness as discrete time-slices), and Open Individualism (all consciousness as one)—showing how each supports a broad ethical concern beyond oneself.
Under Closed and Empty Individualism, being “behind the veil” means we could be any sentient being, so rational self-interest encourages reducing suffering for all, since we might end up experiencing it ourselves.
Open Individualism implies an even stronger ethical stance, where caring for others is identical to caring for oneself, reinforcing universal compassion.
Sentientism, defined as prioritizing evidence, reason, and compassion for all conscious experiences, provides a compelling response to the is/ought problem by linking actual experiences of suffering (is) to the moral imperative to alleviate it (ought).
The essay clarifies that this framing is a conceptual and ethical map, not a literal metaphysical claim about souls or consciousness existing before birth, and highlights implications for individual and collective moral action, including AI alignment.
The author aims to establish sentientism as a grounded ethical framework, inviting further discussion and refinement, especially in relation to future AI ethics.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.