ETA: To the extent that your post is asking about personal behaviour, you perhaps should have made that point clear. You appear to be making a general point about morality, and your “kill three people” hypothetical appears to distract from your actual point, and is probably a large part of why you’re getting downvoted, as it’s rather antagonistic. I’ll keep the rest of my comment intact, as I believe it to be generally relevant.
This would be more constructive were it not self-centered, i.e. if the question were, “I’ll grant so-and-so 100,000 years of life, but you need to kill the next three people you see, and you will suffer no legal or reciprocal consequences for doing so.” (I assume the no-jail-time part was part of your hypothetical.) This gets more at the utilitarian weight of lives, as opposed to individual selfishness.
I can have a perfectly consistent moral framework that is strictly selfish, i.e. “I am the ultimate important thing, and I should do anything that will provide me with a net benefit.” Similarly, and less objectionably, “I should weight my utility somewhat more heavily than I weight that of others, because (A) I am at best making uninformed guesses as to what other people want, (B) if I don’t look out for me, no one else will, and (C) other people have a term in their utility function describing ‘me minding my own business.’”
Your question as phrased is thus more of a measure of the selfishness of one’s value system than of the consistency of being pro-cryopreservation.
ETA: To the extent that your post is asking about personal behaviour, you perhaps should have made that point clear. You appear to be making a general point about morality, and your “kill three people” hypothetical appears to distract from your actual point, and is probably a large part of why you’re getting downvoted, as it’s rather antagonistic. I’ll keep the rest of my comment intact, as I believe it to be generally relevant.
This would be more constructive were it not self-centered, i.e. if the question were, “I’ll grant so-and-so 100,000 years of life, but you need to kill the next three people you see, and you will suffer no legal or reciprocal consequences for doing so.” (I assume the no-jail-time part was part of your hypothetical.) This gets more at the utilitarian weight of lives, as opposed to individual selfishness.
I can have a perfectly consistent moral framework that is strictly selfish, i.e. “I am the ultimate important thing, and I should do anything that will provide me with a net benefit.” Similarly, and less objectionably, “I should weight my utility somewhat more heavily than I weight that of others, because (A) I am at best making uninformed guesses as to what other people want, (B) if I don’t look out for me, no one else will, and (C) other people have a term in their utility function describing ‘me minding my own business.’”
Your question as phrased is thus more of a measure of the selfishness of one’s value system than of the consistency of being pro-cryopreservation.
I assumed rational readers would know that they are not immune to incentives that affect “other people.”