If we could build artificial persons (APs) with a moral status comparable to this of a typical human being, how should we design those APs in the right way? This question has been addressed mainly in terms of designing APs devoted to being servants (AP servants) and debated in reference to their autonomy and the harm they might experience. Recently, it has been argued that even if developing AP servants would neither deprive them of autonomy nor cause any net harm, (...) then developing such entities would still be unethical due to the manipulative attitude of their designers. I make two contributions to this discussion. First, I claim that the argument about manipulative attitude significantly shifts the perspective of the whole discussion on APs and that it refers to a much wider range of types of APs than has been acknowledged. Second, I investigate the possibilities of developing APs without a manipulative attitude. I proceed in the following manner: (1) I examine the argument about manipulativeness; (2) show the important novelty it brings to a discussion about APs; (3) analyze how the argument can be extrapolated to designing other kinds of Aps; and (4) discuss cases in which APs can be designed without manipulativeness. (shrink)

In this paper, I propose a refined version of Seana Shiffrin’s consent argument for anti-natalism and argue that longtermism is best justified not through the traditional consequentialist approach, but from an anti-natalist perspective. I first reformulate Shiffrin’s consent argument, which claims that having children is pro tanto morally problematic because the unconsented harm the child will suffer could not be justified by the benefits they will enjoy, by including what I call the trivializing requirement to better accommodate various criticisms. Based (...) on this iteration of anti-natalism, I argue that future generations should not be seen as far away strangers who are merely anonymous bearers of well-being, but rather as collective victims of the wrongful acts of procreation. As a result, anti-natalism provides us with a rational ground to put a key moral priority on improving the future, not only as restitution to future generations for the unconsented harm imposed on them, but also as part of a long-term effort to nullify the anti-natalist criticism, since the consent argument would no longer apply if our society eventually becomes so utopian that the positive aspects of the average person’s life vastly outweigh its negative aspects. (shrink)