This also should work backwards, temporally, if you want to look at time linearly.
Parfit's extrapolation and commentary on morality is dubious, however there are no citations on this, so maybe the author(s) are projecting?
That aside, it's a big responsibility either way.
From a societal perspective, the UFP has probably had a lot of time to structure rigid laws and clauses to protect its citizens. Starfleet has a non-interference prerogative (a little ironic) which suggests their perspective as a society has shifted to accommodate the tele-tech.
From a moral perspective Robert Angier can swing any direction for his murder or suicide whereas Sam Bell is most definitely a victim of murder.
But from a personal perspective, is Simon Jarrett still at the bottom of the ocean, his battery draining until the inevitable collapse? Or is he among the stars with new friends and a new sense of liberty?
I would argue both, but only if Jarrett is cognizant of his actions. If Jarrett understands that he is condemning himself, then both Jarrett and Jarrett share a personal responsibility to each other.
Perhaps Jarrett is envious that Jarrett gets to live a full and happy life, and perhaps Jarrett feels guilty about this, and the personal duality persists. Maybe Jarrett accepts the decision he made to send himself to space, but Jarrett is still guilty. Is Jarrett still responsible for leaving Jarrett to die?
"what matters" is almost entirely consistent, but establishes a negotiable dissonance where infinite Jarretts have a social bond within the same stream of consciousness.
Parfit's extrapolation and commentary on morality is dubious, however there are no citations on this, so maybe the author(s) are projecting?
That aside, it's a big responsibility either way.
From a societal perspective, the UFP has probably had a lot of time to structure rigid laws and clauses to protect its citizens. Starfleet has a non-interference prerogative (a little ironic) which suggests their perspective as a society has shifted to accommodate the tele-tech.
From a moral perspective Robert Angier can swing any direction for his murder or suicide whereas Sam Bell is most definitely a victim of murder.
But from a personal perspective, is Simon Jarrett still at the bottom of the ocean, his battery draining until the inevitable collapse? Or is he among the stars with new friends and a new sense of liberty?
I would argue both, but only if Jarrett is cognizant of his actions. If Jarrett understands that he is condemning himself, then both Jarrett and Jarrett share a personal responsibility to each other.
Perhaps Jarrett is envious that Jarrett gets to live a full and happy life, and perhaps Jarrett feels guilty about this, and the personal duality persists. Maybe Jarrett accepts the decision he made to send himself to space, but Jarrett is still guilty. Is Jarrett still responsible for leaving Jarrett to die?
"what matters" is almost entirely consistent, but establishes a negotiable dissonance where infinite Jarretts have a social bond within the same stream of consciousness.