If one holds a non-person-affecting view and believes that a marginal human life today is positive in expectation, they should save the letters. Many longtermists are sympathetic to these moral views.
Some possible objections to this, not necessarily held by me:
Some hold mixed person-affecting and non-person-affecting views which allow them to avoid this conclusion.
The conclusion implies that abortion is morally wrong. Some EAs would endorse this, but others would find this corollary deeply objectionable.
The meat-eater problem casts doubt on the value of creating or saving human lives.
Some might accept the thought experiment’s conclusion in a vacuum, but believe that the preservation of a norm of not killing someone to save some letters seems societally valuable.
If one holds a non-person-affecting view and believes that a marginal human life today is positive in expectation, they should save the letters. Many longtermists are sympathetic to these moral views.
Some possible objections to this, not necessarily held by me:
Some hold mixed person-affecting and non-person-affecting views which allow them to avoid this conclusion.
Even if one accepts the conclusion, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the corollary—creating one person is as good as saving a life—means population growth should be prioritized over other interventions.
The conclusion implies that abortion is morally wrong. Some EAs would endorse this, but others would find this corollary deeply objectionable.
The meat-eater problem casts doubt on the value of creating or saving human lives.
Some might accept the thought experiment’s conclusion in a vacuum, but believe that the preservation of a norm of not killing someone to save some letters seems societally valuable.