Discussion ...and the world destroyed?

[esse_est_percipi]

Hume said: "it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger"

This statement was based on his moral philosophy and his view that reason is subordinate to emotions/passions, and only the latter can actually act as motivating forces to action.

Let's assume that Hume was right that it's not more irrational to prefer the world destroyed than scratching a finger.

Let's further assume the hypothetical scenario that the only way you could ctb was by destroying the whole world too (in a way that causes no suffering, so all life just extinguishes itself instantly).

So, it's either ctb + the world destroyed, or no ctb at all.

Would you ctb or not?

(this is purely a philosophical thought experiment intended to see what people's intuitions say, and how they might reason through such a scenario)

 

[Wayfaerer]

I'd choose ctb + world destroyed because there is no way that I could continue this shit as is. Sorry for all those who wanted to live! Would it really matter anyway if everyone died painlessly and instantly? They wouldn't even realize their lives had ended.

I'm also kind of a misanthrope so that also influences my decision.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I'd choose ctb + world destroyed because there is no way that I could continue this shit as is. Sorry for all those who wanted to live! Would it really matter anyway if everyone died painlessly and instantly? They wouldn't even realize their lives had ended.

I'm also kind of a misanthrope so that also influences my decision.

there are times when I'm in that frame of mind.
Well, I fluctuate between misanthropy and wanting humanity to not exist anymore, wanting the whole world to end, wanting just me to end, and wanting to continue because I still have flashes of hope.

 

[Homecoming]

Hume said: "it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger"

This statement was based on his moral philosophy and his view that reason is subordinate to emotions/passions, and only the latter can actually act as motivating forces to action.

Let's assume that Hume was right that it's not more irrational to prefer the world destroyed than scratching a finger.

Let's further assume the hypothetical scenario that the only way you could ctb was by destroying the whole world too (in a way that causes no suffering, so all life just extinguishes itself instantly).

So, it's either ctb + the world destroyed, or no ctb at all.

Would you ctb or not?

(this is purely a philosophical thought experiment intended to see what people's intuitions say, and how they might reason through such a scenario)

Yup, It's within (Death Star) capability of destroying this planet full of pain and sufferings just for the sake of your Creator's entertainment and enjoyment

 

[mahakaliSS_MahaDurga]

Hume said: "it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger"

This statement was based on his moral philosophy and his view that reason is subordinate to emotions/passions, and only the latter can actually act as motivating forces to action.

Let's assume that Hume was right that it's not more irrational to prefer the world destroyed than scratching a finger.

Let's further assume the hypothetical scenario that the only way you could ctb was by destroying the whole world too (in a way that causes no suffering, so all life just extinguishes itself instantly).

So, it's either ctb + the world destroyed, or no ctb at all.

Would you ctb or not?

(this is purely a philosophical thought experiment intended to see what people's intuitions say, and how they might reason through such a scenario)

I would opt for ctb + world destroyed.

 

[Wayfaerer]

there are times when I'm in that frame of mind.
Well, I fluctuate between misanthropy and wanting humanity to not exist anymore, wanting the whole world to end, wanting just me to end, and wanting to continue because I still have flashes of hope.

That's good that you have some hope left. I have not even the teeniest, tiniest faintest hope so I would feel no reason to change my answer.

 

[mahakaliSS_MahaDurga]

there are times when I'm in that frame of mind.
Well, I fluctuate between misanthropy and wanting humanity to not exist anymore, wanting the whole world to end, wanting just me to end, and wanting to continue because I still have flashes of hope.

I fluctuate between these states of mind too.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

That's good that you have some hope left

I'm not even sure I could call it hope anymore.
Just SI messing with me maybe.

Would it really matter anyway if everyone died painlessly and instantly? They wouldn't even realize their lives had ended

I'm not sure it would from the aspect of the history and vastness of the universe.

If all life on earth would just disappear in the blink of an eye with no suffering, then you could even argue that it might be preferable, on a universal suffering/happiness ratio analysis.

Because I have no doubt that suffering outweighs happiness/wellbeing on earth.

 

[Hopeindeath!]

No, I couldn't kill the whole world.

 

[Lupgevif]

As much as I think humanity has no salvation and ceasing to exist would better for it than continuing through all the ruin it is bringing onto itself... I feel it is not up to me to make this choice. First because I believe in individual freedom, therefore I have freedom over my own life, but not over others. Second that I believe humanity have already made the choice to destroy itself, so just let them hurt themselves slowly until extinction. I'd just ctb by myself.

 

[Wayfaerer]

As much as I think humanity has no salvation and ceasing to exist would better for it than continuing through all the ruin it is bringing onto itself... I feel it is not up to me to make this choice. First because I believe in individual freedom, therefore I have freedom over my own life, but not over others. Second that I believe humanity have already made the choice to destroy itself, so just let them hurt themselves slowly until extinction. I'd just ctb by myself.

No you don't understand. It's either CTB + end the world or No CTB and no end the world

 

[Lupgevif]

No you don't understand. It's either CTB + end the world or No CTB and no end the world

My bad, I really read it wrong. Then I ctb, it's gonna get better only for a few in the long term.

 

[Checkmate3]

The only optimistic and heartwarming hope I have, is that maybe a nuclear war will start soon, and we will finally be done with this crappy experiment called life.
So yes, I would CTB.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

The only optimistic and heartwarming hope I have, is that maybe a nuclear war will start soon, and we will finally be done with this crappy experiment called life.
So yes, I would CTB.

Yeah, Trump has said the US has new nuclear weapons. Let's get this shit over with.

 

[Ghost2211]

I would love to see how the world and universe ends... for science of course.

 

[Good4Nothing]

Destroy the world.
The human experiment is a terrible failure.

 

[VIBRITANNIA]

i'd ctb. the world would still end, anyway, with the way we're headed. i'd rather go peacefully than in an explosion or something.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Destroy the world.
The human experiment is a terrible failure.

it sure is

 

[Hydration]

No. I would not CTB. Potentially killing billions of people that didn't want to die would be too much for me. Even if I'm not there to live with the knowledge of what I've done. And if the world's already going to end soon, it's really not my decision to make.

 

[Xocoyotziin]

Well there's that big issue of consent so I don't think I could ethically decide to ctb the world without polling literally everyone first, I mean I can't decide for someone else what the value of their life is, but in practice I'd probably reach a breaking point and rashly let it happen.

This is why people like me should never have responsibilities lol.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Potentially killing billions of people that didn't want to die would be too much for me

Well there's that big issue of consent so I don't think I could ethically decide to ctb the world without polling literally everyone first, I mean I can't decide for someone else what the value of their life is

I mean technically yes, you would be responsible for the deaths of 7 billion+ humans, and all animals. It's a heavy burden, but you would also be putting an end to all suffering.
In the end it comes down to competing internal desires, your desire to end your life vs your desire to respect the autonomy and rights of all other living beings to carry on existing.

 

[Xocoyotziin]

I'm not gonna lie, in these scenarios self-interest does tend to win out when enough stress is applied. But I'm not about to delude myself into believing that robbing every lifeform of their right to choose life over death is some kind of merciful, ultimately good thing either, even if I personally think it might be. That just seems extremely arrogant, although I think a case could be made for sparing their potential progeny from being birthed without their consent. I hate it when people exert authority over me, so it would be beyond hypocritical to do the same to the entire planet. But if things got unbearable enough I would.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Let's further assume the hypothetical scenario that the only way you could ctb was by destroying the whole world too (in a way that causes no suffering, so all life just extinguishes itself instantly).

So, it's either ctb + the world destroyed, or no ctb at all.

This way madness lies...

 

[foxdie]

I don't think I could do it. My pain feels immense but not enough to end every other living thing. Although I don't think I'd want that button in the hands of someone as desperate as me.

 

[LetzteAusfahrt]

Where's the button that I have to push?

After a long and careful consideration (about 0.18 seconds), I decided to use ctb + destroy the world.

The fact that, as stated elsewhere, I do not believe in any higher power and do not give life itself any value, does not even matter in this case.

The decisive question for me is how much suffering life can a happy life cost? How many people can pay for a lifetime so that some other people are fine?

To be honest, I don't know, I can't answer the question in numbers. But I can answer them ethically.

None!

As soon as someone has to suffer for someone else to be well, it is wrong and should be changed. I dare say that this view will never become a reality. On the contrary.

The imbalance between suffering and happiness seems to me to be pretty big today and is automatically getting bigger. The world population is growing rapidly and will lead to drastic events that will result in far more suffering and agony.

Who knows, maybe humanity will continue to exist for hundreds of years, but by then X billion people will have to have led a life that they did not want to have lived.

Where's the button that I have to push ?

 

[cyberlordsumit]

I'd stay and tell everyone how I'm the new God and can kill everyone at will. lol just a thought

 

[AtLeastThere'sSalad]

CTB for sure. Weird thing is, I was literally thinking about this the other day. I have sort of a recurring delusion that today is the end of the world and I'm the only one who knows, and yesterday I considered leaving before the world ended so I would at least have the opportunity to be missed. Selfish, I know, but my worst fear is being forgotten. I know someday nobody will remember me and the earth is doomed to the same fate, so why not end everything sooner rather than later? It doesn't matter to the universe when out world ends. It'll continue like we were never here. I don't want to prolong the wait for that if it means sitting here unable to do anything because I'm too consumed by thoughts of the end.