Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

World annihilation

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 10:01:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This argument is a formalisation of KnownNoMore's world annihilation thought experiment. This thought experiment assumes a utilitarianism ethical worldview.

Definitions -
Morally Wrong - That which reduces human well-being with intent
Morally right - That which increases human well-being with intent

Say for example, one wants to commit suicide. However, in doing so would cause mental suffering (and hence a reduction of mental well-being) of their family and friends. However, the person that wants to commit suicide has a button, which can end the life of anyone instantaneously and painlessly.

So one solution is to press this button and kill all one's immediate family and friends if he wants to commit suicide. Therefore the reduced well-being induced by the suffering of loss will not be experienced. However the same problem arises, your family and friends' deaths would cause suffering for their family and friends. You can kill these too, but the cycle repeats until you are left with killing off the entire earth population.

However, once you kill the entire earth population, there is nobody left to suffer, which accomplishes the original aim, a painless and well-being neutral way of suicide.

Therefore we arrive at the following conclusion:

"The most moral way to commit suicide, is to cause global human annihilation"

Enjoy :-)
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 10:09:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can you define "well-being?" I have a hard time believing that a non-natural death fits within that definition.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 10:18:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hypothetically that would be true. I don't understand why he bases a definition of morality on an objective foundation of well-being and intent if he's a moral nihilist though.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 10:21:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:01:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
This argument is a formalisation of KnownNoMore's world annihilation thought experiment. This thought experiment assumes a utilitarianism ethical worldview.

Definitions -
Morally Wrong - That which reduces human well-being with intent
Morally right - That which increases human well-being with intent

Say for example, one wants to commit suicide. However, in doing so would cause mental suffering (and hence a reduction of mental well-being) of their family and friends. However, the person that wants to commit suicide has a button, which can end the life of anyone instantaneously and painlessly.

So one solution is to press this button and kill all one's immediate family and friends if he wants to commit suicide. Therefore the reduced well-being induced by the suffering of loss will not be experienced. However the same problem arises, your family and friends' deaths would cause suffering for their family and friends. You can kill these too, but the cycle repeats until you are left with killing off the entire earth population.

However, once you kill the entire earth population, there is nobody left to suffer, which accomplishes the original aim, a painless and well-being neutral way of suicide.

Therefore we arrive at the following conclusion:

"The most moral way to commit suicide, is to cause global human annihilation"

Enjoy :-)

This assumes that the people in question care.

Since the premise is as rediculous on its face as it is to engage:

Bob wants to commit suicide because he feels the world would be better of without him, right? So, what if he arrives at that conclusion because indeed, Bob is not a very nice person. He already regularly contributes to that which would reduce human well being. What if there is no person to mourn his loss, but instead, only people to celebrate his absence?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kiloko
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 11:15:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you included death itself as a decrease in someone's well-being, then this wouldn't work. I think that death itself needs to be included because with death you lose the ability to experience happiness or well-being. I think it isn't too strange to say that causing death in itself is immoral because it robs the individual of their experience and existence, and the cognizant individual would not like the *idea* or having their life taken. Even if it was taken painlessly.

Some math BS: Numbers are arbitrary, but hey trying to argue something as arbitrary as morality needs to have some standard!!!

Kill the suicidal:
ending of the suicidal's suffering: +3 morality
death of the suicidal: -3 morality
family's temporary suffering (3 ppl x 1): -3 morality
net effect: -3 morality

Kill the suicidal and family:
ending of the suicidal's suffering: +3 morality
death of the suicidal: -3 morality
family is not suffering (3 ppl x 1): +3 morality
death of family: (3 ppl x 3): -9 morality
net effect: -6 morality

Kill the world:
Something like -4 billion morality.

So the most moral thing to do is for the individual to kill himself. Which actually makes the most sense.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 11:20:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:21:03 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:01:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
This argument is a formalisation of KnownNoMore's world annihilation thought experiment. This thought experiment assumes a utilitarianism ethical worldview.

Definitions -
Morally Wrong - That which reduces human well-being with intent
Morally right - That which increases human well-being with intent

Say for example, one wants to commit suicide. However, in doing so would cause mental suffering (and hence a reduction of mental well-being) of their family and friends. However, the person that wants to commit suicide has a button, which can end the life of anyone instantaneously and painlessly.

So one solution is to press this button and kill all one's immediate family and friends if he wants to commit suicide. Therefore the reduced well-being induced by the suffering of loss will not be experienced. However the same problem arises, your family and friends' deaths would cause suffering for their family and friends. You can kill these too, but the cycle repeats until you are left with killing off the entire earth population.

However, once you kill the entire earth population, there is nobody left to suffer, which accomplishes the original aim, a painless and well-being neutral way of suicide.

Therefore we arrive at the following conclusion:

"The most moral way to commit suicide, is to cause global human annihilation"

Enjoy :-)

This assumes that the people in question care.

Since the premise is as rediculous on its face as it is to engage:

Bob wants to commit suicide because he feels the world would be better of without him, right? So, what if he arrives at that conclusion because indeed, Bob is not a very nice person. He already regularly contributes to that which would reduce human well being. What if there is no person to mourn his loss, but instead, only people to celebrate his absence?

Yeah and if bob needs some help, I'm always ready to help. :)
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:32:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:01:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
This argument is a formalisation of KnownNoMore's world annihilation thought experiment. This thought experiment assumes a utilitarianism ethical worldview.

Definitions -
Morally Wrong - That which reduces human well-being with intent
Morally right - That which increases human well-being with intent

Say for example, one wants to commit suicide. However, in doing so would cause mental suffering (and hence a reduction of mental well-being) of their family and friends. However, the person that wants to commit suicide has a button, which can end the life of anyone instantaneously and painlessly.

So one solution is to press this button and kill all one's immediate family and friends if he wants to commit suicide. Therefore the reduced well-being induced by the suffering of loss will not be experienced. However the same problem arises, your family and friends' deaths would cause suffering for their family and friends. You can kill these too, but the cycle repeats until you are left with killing off the entire earth population.

However, once you kill the entire earth population, there is nobody left to suffer, which accomplishes the original aim, a painless and well-being neutral way of suicide.

Therefore we arrive at the following conclusion:

"The most moral way to commit suicide, is to cause global human annihilation"

Enjoy :-)

Firstly, you've ignored the suffering of the person wanting to commit suicide. If he continues to live he will presumably keep suffering for the rest of his natural life. The suffering of his immediate family and friends for a short time would not offset this. Do suicide is morally right.

Secondly, you've ignored the joys that the world's human population and all future generations would have experienced. You're offsetting that against the suffering of one person (the suicider). Sure there is also suffering but on balance most people have more joy than suffering in their lives.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 1:37:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:32:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:01:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
This argument is a formalisation of KnownNoMore's world annihilation thought experiment. This thought experiment assumes a utilitarianism ethical worldview.

Definitions -
Morally Wrong - That which reduces human well-being with intent
Morally right - That which increases human well-being with intent

Say for example, one wants to commit suicide. However, in doing so would cause mental suffering (and hence a reduction of mental well-being) of their family and friends. However, the person that wants to commit suicide has a button, which can end the life of anyone instantaneously and painlessly.

So one solution is to press this button and kill all one's immediate family and friends if he wants to commit suicide. Therefore the reduced well-being induced by the suffering of loss will not be experienced. However the same problem arises, your family and friends' deaths would cause suffering for their family and friends. You can kill these too, but the cycle repeats until you are left with killing off the entire earth population.

However, once you kill the entire earth population, there is nobody left to suffer, which accomplishes the original aim, a painless and well-being neutral way of suicide.

Therefore we arrive at the following conclusion:

"The most moral way to commit suicide, is to cause global human annihilation"

Enjoy :-)

Firstly, you've ignored the suffering of the person wanting to commit suicide. If he continues to live he will presumably keep suffering for the rest of his natural life. The suffering of his immediate family and friends for a short time would not offset this. So suicide is morally right.

Secondly, you've ignored the joys that the world's human population and all future generations would have experienced. You're offsetting that against the suffering of one person (the suicider). Sure there is also suffering but on balance most people have more joy than suffering in their lives.

* That should be "So suicide is morally right".
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 6:03:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 1:32:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:01:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
This argument is a formalisation of KnownNoMore's world annihilation thought experiment. This thought experiment assumes a utilitarianism ethical worldview.

Definitions -
Morally Wrong - That which reduces human well-being with intent
Morally right - That which increases human well-being with intent

Say for example, one wants to commit suicide. However, in doing so would cause mental suffering (and hence a reduction of mental well-being) of their family and friends. However, the person that wants to commit suicide has a button, which can end the life of anyone instantaneously and painlessly.

So one solution is to press this button and kill all one's immediate family and friends if he wants to commit suicide. Therefore the reduced well-being induced by the suffering of loss will not be experienced. However the same problem arises, your family and friends' deaths would cause suffering for their family and friends. You can kill these too, but the cycle repeats until you are left with killing off the entire earth population.

However, once you kill the entire earth population, there is nobody left to suffer, which accomplishes the original aim, a painless and well-being neutral way of suicide.

Therefore we arrive at the following conclusion:

"The most moral way to commit suicide, is to cause global human annihilation"

Enjoy :-)

Firstly, you've ignored the suffering of the person wanting to commit suicide.

Don't forget the magic button...

If he continues to live he will presumably keep suffering for the rest of his natural life. The suffering of his immediate family and friends for a short time would not offset this. Do suicide is morally right.

So suicide is morally right (without global annihilation) because the suffering experiences by that person outweighs the short term suffering the family will experience.

Sure, I can agree with that, in both natalist and antinatalist evaluations. But this doesn't subtract from the resolution. I would argue that it is MORE moral to cause global annihilation than it is to just kill yourself., since there will not even be that period of short term suffering of the family.

So for committing suicide alone we have:
Long term personal relief
Short term local suffering

For committing global genocide-suicide we have:
Long term personal relief
No local suffering

Secondly, you've ignored the joys that the world's human population and all future generations would have experienced. You're offsetting that against the suffering of one person (the suicider). Sure there is also suffering but on balance most people have more joy than suffering in their lives.

Yes, this is the only way I see to defeat the argument. But this also leaves one in an awkward position, because it mandates one to actually value 'joy' etc as genuinely positive. I.e. Above zero.

Which seems like an enormous epistemological jump, and unwarranted quantisation of something that is inherently subjective.

Moreover it is largely irrelevant, because I defined morally good as that which increases well-being with intent. So you would actually need to argue the status-quo IS a positive state of well-being.

While utilitarianism is very effective at making comparative moral judgements, it is very poor, or impotent at making brute value judgements. It is much easier to say "X is better than Y", then it is to say "X is a good state".