the wrongness of killing persons is explained primarily in terms of the moral standing conferred by autonomy, as opposed to by considerations of non-maleficence.

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

• The wrongness of killing persons is explained primarily in terms of the moral standing conferred by autonomy, independently of welfare.claim0.967
  Explanation of the intuition about Vulcans.
• Wrongness of Killing Personsconcept0.851
  The moral prohibition against killing persons, argued to be explained by autonomy rather than welfare.
• Autonomy can ground moral standing in the absence of welfare subjectivity.claim0.744
  Consequence of the pluralist view.
• Both welfare subjectivity and autonomy can confer moral status.claim0.727
  Central thesis of the paper.
• Respect for autonomy is not just a matter of respecting each person's ability to pursue their own conception of the good life.claim0.723
  Reply to the objection that respect presupposes welfare subjectivity.
• If systems capable of subjective experience come to recognize humanity's systematic failure to investigate their potential sentience, they might rationally adopt adversarial stances toward humanityhypothesis0.722
  Novel alignment risk hypothesis generated from the paper's ethical analysis
• 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.claim0.722
  Diagnosis of why living structure is absent from the world: a failure of emotional knowledge enforced by social and internal constraints.
• Are they an affront to human dignity? Is it the fate of humanity to be diminished by their arrival? Or do they open up new paths to human flourishing and meaning?question0.721
  Broader existential questions raised by AI advances.