Questionable ethics - Living Memory

[EchoingPulse]

I'm starting to lose the plot of Silvermoon's arguments. Either they're defending the dead memory ghosts or trying to justify their existance?

[Lady_Silvermoon]

I'm starting to lose the plot of Silvermoon's arguments. Either they're defending the dead memory ghosts or trying to justify their existance?

I'm defending the dead memory ghosts by justifying their right to an afterlife of their choosing. After all, the reason they are exterminated with extreme prejudice is due to philosophical denial of their right to exist. Some might argue it was in self-defense, but the Endless have no ability nor inclination to harm us, it's the program that wishes to harm us.

You're pointing out they're dead to dehumanize them much as the story tries to do, however, we give more self-determination to our own dead (which is why you need either the permission of the person when they were living or the permission of the family to harvest organs) than the characters give those in Living Memory and they can voice their desires, create art, fall in love, construct plans...that's a whole lot of personhood to erase from existence on the grounds one person in the party finds them morally objectionable.

When Krile's parents ask if they are about to be deleted, the first thing Krile says is, "Perhaps there is another way," which meant our characters wiped out countless people based off convictions that aren't even their own.

This thread is about the Questionable Ethics of Living Memory and I've been laying out why someone being dead does not give you the right to do whatever you want with their memory aether. The same way someone being dead in our society doesn't give you the right to whatever you want with their corpse. Consent matters and the Endless are sentient beings capable of consenting and objecting to the things done to them.