It seems to me that if the settlement is done voluntarily that it must fulfill some preference that the settlers value more than comfort. Freedom, adventure, or the feeling that you’re part of something bigger, to name three possibilities. For that reason their lives couldn’t really be said to have lowered in quality. If it’s done involuntarily my first instinct is to say that no, we shouldn’t do it, although you could probably get me to say yes by introducing some extenuating circumstance, like it being the only way to prevent extinction.
Of course, this then brings up the issue of whether or not the settlers should have children who might not feel the same way they do. I’m much less sure about the morality of doing that.
It seems to me that if the settlement is done voluntarily that it must fulfill some preference that the settlers value more than comfort. Freedom, adventure, or the feeling that you’re part of something bigger, to name three possibilities. For that reason their lives couldn’t really be said to have lowered in quality. If it’s done involuntarily my first instinct is to say that no, we shouldn’t do it, although you could probably get me to say yes by introducing some extenuating circumstance, like it being the only way to prevent extinction.
Of course, this then brings up the issue of whether or not the settlers should have children who might not feel the same way they do. I’m much less sure about the morality of doing that.
Yes, the scenario involves adding people, not just moving them around. That’s what makes population ethics tricky.