Well, let's start with answering the question: yes, I'd be fine with that. I've said this many times before in similar threads on HN and elsewhere. (Oh, but the clone has to be in my problem situation, my specific one, locally.)

This is one of those conversations that immediately forks into four or five sidetracks instead of staying conveniently linear. I skimped on the multiverse question for that reason. I used that word multiverse because there's a similar concern that arises for some people with the many-worlds interpretation: if, for any action, all possible outcomes occur in the multiverse, what's the point of any action? Which amounts to asking "why can't I have infinite reach and the ability to control time, it's so unfair". I think the answer is that the kind of striving that matters to a person is local striving. I am skimping on this one again.

So now I have to try and understand your point of view ... feelings are the primary source of truth, huh, do you really think so? Or I mean do you feel confident about that? Is there, do you feel, any influence in the opposite direction, where rational thought changes how you feel about things?

The identical clone is of course an entirely novel thing, and imaginary. Can you imagine, also, feeling that this imaginary thing is you, and that you are doubled? Being doubled is a mind-bendingly novel state. Twins, I think, don't come close enough. But I don't think the important thing is the exact configuration of atoms, or position in space; I think it's the ideas. I'm fine with being killed for the convenience of my idea-identical clone, because what I call living is my ideas living, as a group, in a mind, including those ideas with no names and no words.

(Now I'm sidetracked into wondering if there are any identical twins who wrote books of great cultural importance. Oddly I can't think of any. My next question would be whether they both wrote books with the same ideas in; sounds unlikely.)