No. Just like there are no real benefits to being a different person entirely, e.g. if you took some DNA and created a new person from the original. They would have no benefit over the original. We're not arguing benefit, really, just that they would in effect be different people, albeit very slightly at first.
Well you're a different person to an hour ago, and an hour before that. I don't see you saying that you're against the progression of time though.
Being against the progression of time is an alien concept, but were it to keep me at this exact state forever? I doubt I could see much wrong with it, given it would avoid the problems associated with death and losing family from immortality.
And yea, I'm a different person from a year before. That person is dead, and he'd heavily object to me taking his place. Unfortunately, I did, and someone will take mine. But the thing is, just like teleportation, me and past-me
are different people.
Different options. If the people are the same, and they view say 50 options as equally valid, they're not likely to both choose the same one.
But what option a person chooses is based on his physical condition. By maintaining the exact same physical conditions, you ensure that they both make the same choices.
There's the example of reverse btw. Using magnets to affect moral choices made by people.
Okay. But the same person with his double in the same room, even under the influence of magnets, will still have options open to them, and may choose different options, if they are all of similar merit. If they were constrained to two options, then it's still likely one will choose the other...but then you get to the fact that each is deciding how to regulate their breathing, each is moving muscles to relax them at different times (Given that, no matter their similarity, they're still going to change at least slightly different times in which to move, and not be in complete sync.) Being in complete sync would very likely in itself make them try to stop being in sync, as well.