[ SECRET POST #5624 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5624 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #805.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I have a degree in philosophy.

You too? Cool! As someone who has a degree in philosophy, I'm a little taken aback that you're out here insisting there is one right way to evaluate the ethical implications of this hypothetical scenario. I was too hasty when I stated that it is, for a fact, ethically neutral. That's not the only valid way of evaluating the situation. But neither is yours, and I think you know that.

[(Anonymous)]

I have to wonder about your implicit assumption of identity persistence. It assumes a whole lot of baggage along with it, including determinism, personhood, consent and then clashes very strikingly with continuity. I have no idea how you would square that circle other than saying you like it that way.

Philosophy is not a field of just opinions to be defended. There are answers to moral questions and we've basically all agreed since Kant that people are ends in and of themselves, not means. You don't treat people like things.