what are the ethics of creating new moral agents, knowing we cannot control what they do or how much joy/suffering they will have?

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Morality is about making people happy, not making happy people.quote0.759
  Narveson's person-affecting slogan, central to the discussion of whether we have duties to create super-beneficiaries
• What degree of concern and care should we exhibit toward the many diverse agents around us, and what criteria do we use to identify sentience, capacity for suffering, and other properties that have moral implications?question0.757
  Central question motivating the paper.
• The simple fact that intelligent agents are collectives and do not continue unchanged fulfills a necessary requirement for an open-ended evolution of intelligence.claim0.750
  Connects collective intelligence to evolutionary potential.
• Is It Ethically Justifiable To Create A Newquestion0.747
• If AI systems could experience happiness and suffering and set and pursue their own goals based on their own beliefs and desires, then they would very plausibly merit moral consideration.hypothesis0.744
  Joint sufficiency of consciousness and robust agency.
• People do not know—emotionally—how to please themselves. In part, they are prevented by society. And in part, they are prevented by themselves, by their inner thought police.claim0.742
  Diagnosis of why living structure is absent from the world: a failure of emotional knowledge enforced by social and internal constraints.
• What Does A New Ethics Of Life Asquestion0.740
• It is possible for us to build a world in which people are emotionally free, fully themselves, and alive, as demonstrated by contemporary projects.claim0.736
  Optimism based on Mexicali, Eishin, and Whidbey Island.