A bacterium is much more complex than a unit in a game like Civ or Sims. In fact the protein synthesis is probably more complex than those units.
Whether Cats have moral personhood is debatable. Obviously they can suffer. They are intelligent enough that I cannot tell if they are sentient or not. Thus I treat them as if they had 'moral personhood'.
So, then, complexity is our main criterion as to whether we postulate sentience, intelligence, and/or the capability to suffer, when considering a life-form radically different from our own?
Though I agree that a bacterium is far more complex than the sum total of all of my sims put together, I'm not sure whether this point holds as much relevancy as you seem to be saying.
From a systems point of view, the gap isn't that huge: a bacterium seeks energy (say, phosphates in a petri dish); grows to equilibrium point for its environment (sends intra-colonial chemical signals to stop growth, as energy limits are neared); runs on simple algorithms, expressed through the manufacture of amino acids, written in the simple language of DNA (RNA, in some few cases); and, finally, does so without any (presumably) 'knowledge' or 'awareness' of the mitochondria, organelles, and other constituents of its limited 'selfdom.' Goes without saying, it's even less aware of the fundemental forces of physics, which, at base level, provide the very possibility, as well as the means, of its existence.
Functionally, this varies very little from a sim. I'll stick specifically to SimCity in this example, though I'm sure analogous examples are readily availible.
A Sim seeks energy (say, Simoleans provided by good jobs in a city); will breed/immigrate to an equilibrium point (triggers delapidation/unemployment events, as limits are reached); runs on simple algorithms, expressed through the motion of pixels on a display, written in a simple binary machine language; and, finally, does so without any 'knowledge,' 'awareness,' etc of its own state
as life, nevermind its state in life.
Materialistically, there's even less to separate the two. So, once again, on what grounds is 'complexity' of the object relevant to the moral position of the subject, if moral rights are measured by one's capacity to suffer? Not to suggest that you're arguing that bacteria somehow deserve moral personhood, but if we allow complexity to be relevant, where do we set the limit? Ought we all stop swatting mosquitoes? Are mousetraps genocide machines?
I posit that the
appearance of complexity, from a high-level viewpoint, is more important than the actual complexity. Otherwise, we must all be much more careful not to eat, drink, move, or even exist, without worrying for the countless victims (all, within reasonable limits, pretty much our equals as far as complexity goes) of our mere existence.
So, what's really relevant is: does this lifeform with which I'm interacting
seem to share enough, experientially, with me, for me to assume its moral equivalency? Which is why I question whether to radically rezone a city full of sims much more deeply than I mourn the losses every time I sneeze.
Though I agree, viscerally, with your laudable stance in re: not messin' wit' da kittehz, I find it difficult to explain satisfactorally (to myself at least) what it is that a cat has more of, that a sim doesn't - excepting perhaps my own tactile familiarity shared environmental experience. Outside, perhaps, of some sort of return to a weak vitalism in our philosophy, I fail to see any difference in kind; simply one of degree.
Our perspective, intent and actions while playing a game alter how and in what way it can affect us.
By what mechanism? It seems more likely that our intent and perspective will alter how we affect the game; presuming, of course, that 'intent' has any causal relevance whatsoever in the world (not to sure about that one, tbh).
I hope uncanny valley does not have an effect here. We probably should not let discomfort affect our moral intuitions/ethical conclusions.
At this time? A goldfish can sense while a sim is closer to a rock moved by a programmed crane (the crane is the game). Whether a goldfish has 'moral personhood' is debatable. It would depend on whether suffering or sentience was the better metric.
In a better world, 'ought'
probably equals 'is.' I get the feeling (no more than a hunch, at this point - it's a long way from any area of expertise I may actually hold!) that such an effect is very much in play. If it's close enough to be like me, but far enough away to use a slightly different set of resources in my niche, it deserves moral consideration. If it's close enough to me to use the same resources, but just far enough from me to not be me (or kin), DIE ENEMY, DIE! (cf. every colonial expansion, ever, from the wiping out of the Neaderthals on). If it uses the same part of our shared niche, but is within the sphere I call 'me' (incl, but not limited to: my family; my house-guest level friends; my cat (but not necessarily that stray that keeps digging up the gddmn garden!!!!); my workmates and close associates (except that doofus 3 cubicles over - him I can do without); etc. As resources diminish, level I accept as 'close enough to me to be me' changes; you want to live in my country, cool, whatever... in my garage, you'd better be very close to me... in my bedroom....
What are your criteria for describing something as sensate? A sim reacts to its environment, within external bounds set by forces out of its control (the size of the region, the program that makes up its person), much the same as a goldfish does (the size of the fishtank, the programming that wrote its neural development - organs of sense).
Is it the size of the bounds that matter? If Sims were actual, 3-dimensional objects in tangible spacetime, would their reactions to external stimuli somehow count more? Is it their relative complexity? Well, as covered, they're really about equal from a systems standpoint; I'd like to add that, from an engineering standpoint, complexity is a negative - how is existence in a 3-dimensional meat machine, with a bazillion failure modes, functionally superior, or more moral?
Once again, viscerally, I agree with you. It's right to question oneself, simply because it's right. I'm okay with the tautology. But, when I ask myself
why I feel anything approaching moral qualms, when playing a game that I paid to play, that was designed to be played the way I'm playing it - that's where it gets interesting.
Speaking just for myself -- a beating heart.
So, where would, say, an automobile engine fit in the hierarchy? Somewhere between a goldfish and a sim - organic w/pump>machine w/pump>machine w/o pump? Equal to a golfish? Meatpump = Gaspump > Nopump?
