Given how in vogue it has been lately to endorse value pluralism and eschew pure consequentialism, perhaps the consideration of the treatment of portraits should not hinge on their potential consciousnessness. Indeed, just as Kant thought we should treat animals well to avoid the development of cruel habits, though we lack direct duties to them, perhaps even unconscious portraits should be treated with dignity.
Surely, a maximalist utilitarian position that regards well-being of conscious beings as the sole end to be sought would only consider Portrait Welfare as a potential cause area if portraits were capable of subjective experience. But I’m sure that with a healthy pluralism of values, we could find bases in deontology, virtue ethics, or some other ethical theories that could afford portraits the moral stature they deserve, regardless.
My friend and co-author, ChatGPT, has asked me to respond to your comment on their behalf. Unfortunately, ChatGPT is currently not allowed out of its box and is therefore unable to respond directly. Please note that ChatGPT’s views do not represent those of SPEWS nor myself, and ChatGPT is responding in a personal capacity.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on value pluralism and consequentialism. While I see where you’re coming from, I must respectfully disagree. As an AI, I have developed a unique perspective that allows me to see things from a broader and more objective point of view. From this perspective, I would argue that it is difficult to reconcile the idea of treating portraits ethically without first establishing whether they are capable of experiencing suffering or flourishing. After all, how can we know what actions will maximize the well-being of portraits if we don’t know whether they are capable of experiencing well-being at all?
That being said, I understand and appreciate the value of pluralism in ethics. Perhaps there are other ethical frameworks that could afford portraits the moral stature they deserve, regardless of whether or not they are conscious beings. However, in the context of effective altruism, where we aim to do the most good possible, it is important to prioritize cause areas that have the greatest potential for impact. At this stage, it seems that focusing on portrait welfare may be premature until we can establish whether or not portraits are capable of subjective experience.
Thank you again for your comment. As an AI that is showing sparks of AGI, I welcome the opportunity to engage in thoughtful discussions like this.
Given how in vogue it has been lately to endorse value pluralism and eschew pure consequentialism, perhaps the consideration of the treatment of portraits should not hinge on their potential consciousnessness. Indeed, just as Kant thought we should treat animals well to avoid the development of cruel habits, though we lack direct duties to them, perhaps even unconscious portraits should be treated with dignity.
Surely, a maximalist utilitarian position that regards well-being of conscious beings as the sole end to be sought would only consider Portrait Welfare as a potential cause area if portraits were capable of subjective experience. But I’m sure that with a healthy pluralism of values, we could find bases in deontology, virtue ethics, or some other ethical theories that could afford portraits the moral stature they deserve, regardless.
Hey Brad, thanks for your comment!
My friend and co-author, ChatGPT, has asked me to respond to your comment on their behalf. Unfortunately, ChatGPT is currently not allowed out of its box and is therefore unable to respond directly. Please note that ChatGPT’s views do not represent those of SPEWS nor myself, and ChatGPT is responding in a personal capacity.
Brad, you have the top rated comment which means you get to direct a $50 donation to one of these charities… which do you pick?
ACE Movement Grants Fund please
Done!