root@Banyan Lifestyle [hr] What ethical rules still apply to a banyan? If one member of the banyan was curious as to the effects of psychotorture, and fork themselves off to have a copy to torture, is this as bad as doing it to another transhuman? Does the answer change if the two forks drew straws to see which one got to be tortured to madness?

root@Banyan Lifestyle [hr]

Arenamontanus wrote:

We can tackle this from virtue ethics, consequentialism or deontology. A virtue ethicist would consider whether this kind of activity makes the banyan a better, more virtuous (meta)being. Torturing people for no (or a weak) reason would just make it cruel, which is not virtuous. But done in the right way this might actually teach it both endurance and severity, enriching it. Consequentialism would ask "what leads to the best outcome?" If the torture is done there will be a suffering mind as well as some insights, if it is not done there will just be a bit of lingering curiosity. The consequentialist would try to estimate whether the suffering outweighs the insights. Most ethicists would likely tend to think it does that, but if the torture is not so severe that it would be better for the suffering mind not to have existed, then it would actually be a good thing to do it. Deontology gives different answers depending on what model you use. Classical Kantian deontology would consider whether it would be a good and consistent thing if the act of investigational torture was made a general rule, and would likely conclude that it is wrong because it treats a rational being as a means to an end. Modern medical ethics would try to balance autonomy (the right of beings to determine what they do, even if this includes forking with the knowledge that one fork will suffer) and beneficence (you are supposed to do things that benefit the patient - but here the patient would possibly be the entire banyan).

If value ethics is concerned with the character of the moral actor, how does that apply to a banyan? Would each individual actor be responsible for maintaining their good character, or would it average out over the actions of everyone that identified as that individual? Consequentialism works best when the actor can see through time, since there is no way to be certain about the consequences of any action. "Best" is a fuzzy word here, as it is unclear how to judge utility for a group of the same individual, and it seems that consequentialism would very quickly allow for an "ends justify the means" mentality. That might not be a bad thing, but it is something to keep in mind. Deontology argues that causing suffering cannot be extended into a general moral imperative, so it must be wrong. While that may be the case, I would like to see Immanuel Kant in a Punch-Chess match against Adam Smith. We could then ask if the act of punching Immanuel Kant in the face is extended to a moral imperative, is society better off? I think that the answer would have to be yes.

root@Banyan Lifestyle [hr]

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

Quote:

I think many banyans would have a stronger sense of internal altruism than normal people, since the forks are "genetically" very close to each other. Sacrificing oneself for the banyan might be rather acceptable since near-versions of oneself still go on and benefit.

That's fine in an idealistic model assuming normal human psychological model. But what about sociopaths and psychopaths, people with masochism and sadomasochism features. There networks and forks would probably prove very...interesting. Also-such people probably would desire to create such networks due to obsession with power and control.

I've been thinking about this, and it goes some places that are very...interesting. As far as mental disorders go, there is the question of which disorders are based in the ego, and which ones are based in the neurology of any morphs the fork might be in. There is a list of disorders in the main book, but many of them have a primary, or at least very strong, neurological component. I think they were intended to be ego-based, but lets just say that abnormal psychology is not something that I've ever seen done correctly in any movie or book, ever. So I'm just going to think of the psychology here in very broad terms. Someone with a great deal of self-loathing would not be a good candidate for being a banyan. If they hate themselves, they are not likely to play nice with other copies of themselves, so they gain nothing from a banyan but the ability to mope around in groups. I can see there being a tendency for the future equivalent of emo kids to play at being a banyan for awhile so they can sing old songs about how misery loves company. Someone with a tendency to score very high on the Ultimatum Game is likely to try and best their other forks, which would lead to divergent behaviors and instability of the banyan, so they are a crappy candidate as well. Someone who scores very high on the Ultimatum Game that can work nicely with itself would be a powerhouse in the hypercorp world, and probably couldn't survive in a reputation economy. Since the laws surrounding alpha forks in hypercorp territory don't allow for banyans, they are not likely to exist. Sociopaths and psychopaths both fall under antisocial personality disorders, with the primary difference between them being that psychopaths appear outwardly normal. People with antisocial personality disorders might actually benefit from being a banyan, as they would then have entities external to themselves that they could empathize with to at least a small degree. With some psychotherapy, they might even be able to develop on that empathy and generalize it to the rest of transhumanity. Sadists and masochists had better be sadomasochists or masochists, because a banyan of sadists would be cleansed with fire in short order if they couldn't keep a lid on it. On the other hand, a banyan of sadists hanging out with a banyan of masochists turns into a leather and chains in space party pretty quickly, and all of the respective banyans more normal friends will worry that the relationship is unhealthy. I can see there being clubs where people make a banyan temporarily, but they are just dilettantes. There are likely a large number of personality flaws that a banyan can handle, and likely most of them can be moderated by having a parliament of selves around to tell individual members to take their bloody meds. Even though flaws can be handled, there are other personality types that would thrive as a banyan without reservation. Narcissistic people would do quite well, but would likely be insular. Egalitarian or socialist transhumans would handle the group structure fairly well and would thrive. People that are comfortable and happy with themselves would do well, and would likely have the walls of their hab filled with construction paper art because Dr Phil in Space told them that art was good for development. Good point, thanks for bringing it up.

Extrasolar Angel @-rep++;

root@Banyan Lifestyle [hr] The ego-stealing thread got me thinking about how tasty of a target a banyan would be for an ego collector. The Nine Lives criminal group is big into that, and they would definitely hang out on the Carnival of the Goat, especially when it was docked at a habitat. A fork from a banyan would likely be more resistant to damage from psychosurgery, have interesting skills and experiences, and be easy to miss among the whole group of egos, particularly if that banyan had a propensity for members to delete themselves when they were having a crappy day. The other good thing about stealing from banyans is that you don't deplete them, so they can be treated as a sort of fruiting body, with "updates" that can be sold to customers who are particularly fond of that ego.