Discussion Promortalists, the Red Button and their challenge to those who "love life"

[SexyIncél]

A friend of mine is pro-mortalist. She thinks life entails suffering. So she'd definitely hit the Red Buttton, if it means all life ends instantly & painlessly

This philosophy's interesting & valuable. The universe is indeed brutal, many animals must maul each other every few days -- or die of hunger. Humans theoretically can act differently, but in many ways we're far worse than the others. Not only do our diets create massive suffering for animals, we're unnecessarily terrible to each other. And we're already poking horrific Red Buttons. (Nukes, environmental collapse, etc)

I think those who "love life" have a burden: make life worth living. At our tech level, we can do it. So they should make a world where everyone has food, shelter and other freedoms. And not harm other animals whenever feasible

(This applies to me too)

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

Pro-mortalism strikes me as tricky position to defend, philosophically. Even David Benatar, famous as he is for promoting antinatalism, won't touch pro-mortalism with a 10 foot pole, saying that "life is not worth starting", but if it's already started then it's not worth terminating.

(On a personal note, that made me lose a fair deal of the respect I had for Benatar's work.)

In any case, I don't have a fundamental problem with pro-mortalism. But it has a particular ethical implication that I haven't seen addressed in a convincing (to me, at least) way—how do you reconcile "ending all life to prevent suffering" with the mental suffering such a prospect would have on those who do wish to carry on living? The usual argument to that seems to be "once everyone is dead, they won't be able to care one way or the other", which is true enough. I suppose my issue is not with the results of pushing the button, but with how one could be so hubristically convinced that their position is correct, to the point where they'd feel justified in overriding the will and desires of close to 8 billion of other members of their species.

Now, is this an argument against pro-mortalism itself? I don't think so. Rather, I feel like it's a problem with how the argument has been formulated. Either way, it's something to think about.

 

[FuneralCry]

I do believe that it certainly would be better if life was never a thing at all, no amount of words can describe my disgust for this world filled with endless torture, to "love life" is insanity to me and such a point of view is just glorifying the harsh nature of this existence. Life undeniably is suffering which never needed to exist, the existence of life is just a cruel mistake, a tragedy and I believe that non existence is always preferable.

All that life is, is just an endless cycle of torment that is just an unfortunate consequence of evolution, and the very nature of existence is something that is harmful. Promortalism is what makes sense to me, as I'm anti suffering, and I don't see any benefit to being trapped in this hellish world, such a thing only serves to torture existing beings. For all suffering to peacefully disappear would be perfection to me as there are no disadvantages to not existing.

 

[SexyIncél]

But it has a particular ethical implication that I haven't seen addressed in a convincing (to me, at least) way—how do you reconcile "ending all life to prevent suffering" with the mental suffering such a prospect would have on those who do wish to carry on living?

Yeah, they postulate a Red Button that'd end all life instantly, ideally without anyone knowing. (So no lifeform suffers, or maybe some humans briefly suffer)

Maybe it's tricky to defend, but honest pro-lifers also have to defend Really Existing Life: people's lives wasted obeying managers half their waking hours, homeless people next to opulence, omnivores & carnivores ripping each other apart, etc. Without consent. Their hubris is believing they have no burden to justify themselves

Some honest pro-lifers actually take their responsibility seriously! Take Einstein, who wrote:

"I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind [...] Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: 'Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?'​

​

"I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?"​

Also, since the Red Button doesn't actually exist, I think its value is in what it helps you discover. Like lines: no one's ever seen a straight line. (When you look at them through microscopes, they're jagged. And they have nonzero width, unlike lines.) But pretending lines exist helps us immensely

 

[Forever Sleep]

It is indeed an interesting argument. Still- I know I couldn't do it because ultimately- I respect autonomy. To say- 'I know best- you should all die with me' seems just as bad as the normies insisting that we should hang on to life. As difficult as it is for us to comprehend- some people and animals seem to enjoy life to the greater extent. It seems like God level judgement to me and I'm not a God.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

Yeah, they postulate a Red Button that'd end all life instantly, ideally without anyone knowing. (So no lifeform suffers, or maybe some humans briefly suffer)

Maybe it's tricky to defend, but honest pro-lifers also have to defend Really Existing Life: people's lives wasted obeying managers half their waking hours, homeless people next to opulence, omnivores & carnivores ripping each other apart, etc. Without consent. Their hubris is believing they have no burden to justify themselves

Yes, the pro-life argument seems to present the same problems but from the opposite direction. "I've decided that all life is worth ending" is as hard to justify as "I've decided that all lives are worth living." It boils down to, as @Forever Sleep puts it, a matter of autonomy. Personally, declaring that my position—whatever it would be—is right and I ought to force it onto everyone else is ethically troubling. So I guess I wouldn't push the Red Button myself.

Also, since the Red Button doesn't actually exist, I think its value is in what it helps you discover. Like lines: no one's ever seen a straight line. (When you look at them through microscopes, they're jagged. And they have nonzero width, unlike lines.) But pretending lines exist helps us immensely

Definitely. I find thought experiments like these to be very useful. It's good to get outside of one's own head, question our assumptions, and engage with other people's ideas.

 

[the_town_manager]

Personally, declaring that my position—whatever it would be—is right and I ought to force it onto everyone else is ethically troubling. So I guess I wouldn't push the Red Button myself.

But it's no more forcing your position on everyone else than not pushing it is. If the button was real, then whichever way you chose, you'd be making a decision for countless other beings. Only in the scenario where you don't push it, the countless others keep getting regenerated over and over again with each successive generation, and when you do push it, it's a one-and-done type of deal. I'm usually big on letting everyone decide for themselves, but in this scenario the consent argument don't really sway me at all.

 

[SamTam33]

If such a thing existed, I'd mash that button so hard it would get stuck in the down position.

I'd think of all the girls and women that have been kidnapped and are being held captive right now in sex trafficking rings.

All of the hungry, homeless people. People with limbs blown off in war. People who are falsely imprisoned.

I'd prioritize the ending of their suffering over the people who are enjoying life.

Suffice to say that the ones who want to live have already experienced a fairly decent existence. And the ones who haven't still believe in heaven, so they'll be fine once they make it to their beloved afterlife.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

But it's no more forcing your position on everyone else than not pushing it is. If the button was real, then whichever way you chose, you'd be making a decision for countless other beings. Only in the scenario where you don't push it, the countless others keep getting regenerated over and over again with each successive generation, and when you do push it, it's a one-and-done type of deal.

I'd argue that not pushing it doesn't count as "forcing a position"—life already is, not choosing to unilaterally terminate all life is not equivalent to forcing life onto others, as life has already been forced onto them before I walked into the picture. I would not consider myself liable for the actions of individuals who choose to bring more life into the world, even though I disagree with their decision.

You could maybe try to argue that, if the button were offered to me, I have some sort of moral responsibility to end all suffering by pushing it, but I think it doesn't solve the issue of personal autonomy. I've heard the same argument coming from the pro-life side before—"we have a moral duty to preserve life and continue reproducing"—but I don't find it convincing either.

I'm usually big on letting everyone decide for themselves, but in this scenario the consent argument don't really sway me at all.

Isn't this what pro-lifers and suicide prevention advocates say? It is, at its core, saying that there are some things individuals should not be allowed to decide for themselves because we (whoever "we" happens to be) know better. What's the difference between forcing someone to live when they want to die, and forcing someone to die when they want to live? And should anyone even have the power to make such decisions for others?

 

[the_town_manager]

I'd argue that not pushing it doesn't count as "forcing a position"—life already is, not choosing to unilaterally terminate all life is not equivalent to forcing life onto others, as life has already been forced onto them before I walked into the picture. I would not consider myself liable for the actions of individuals who choose to bring more life into the world, even though I disagree with their decision.

You could maybe try to argue that, if the button were offered to me, I have some sort of moral responsibility to end all suffering by pushing it, but I think it doesn't solve the issue of personal autonomy. I've heard the same argument coming from the pro-life side before—"we have a moral duty to preserve life and continue reproducing"—but I don't find it convincing either.


Isn't this what pro-lifers and suicide prevention advocates say? It is, at its core, saying that there are some things individuals should not be allowed to decide for themselves because we (whoever "we" happens to be) know better. What's the difference between forcing someone to live when they want to die, and forcing someone to die when they want to live? And should anyone even have the power to make such decisions for others?

I think personal autonomy wouldn't really matter with such a decision. Not to me anyway. The consequences far outweigh any considerations of personal autonomy. Would you be saying that you wouldn't push the button for reasons of personal autonomy if the balance of existing beings having an obviously really terrible time vs beings having a generally great time was 99 to 1? What if it was literally one being having a great time at the expense of everyone else at the universe? You still wouldn't press the button? I don't think what's most important in the universe is for me personally to never violate someone's consent.

I think personal autonomy is only ever a really strong argument if it's one person deciding about their own life only. Then, yes, do what you want, it's your own life. If your decisions have consequences that directly affect others, or if your ability to make those decisions hinges on the existence of some unethical system which can't be brought down without violating your consent, then I don't see why personal autonomy should trump all other considerations. If it's an evil system, then I'm all for bringing it down, even if those that are sitting at the top are against it.

 

[SamTam33]

I think personal autonomy wouldn't really matter with such a decision. Not to me anyway. The consequences far outweigh any considerations of personal autonomy. Would you be saying that you wouldn't push the button for reasons of personal autonomy if the balance of existing beings having an obviously really terrible time vs beings having a generally great time was 99 to 1? What if it was literally one being having a great time at the expense of everyone else at the universe? You still wouldn't press the button?

This reminds me of the ending of Swordfish where Travolta's character asked Hugh Jackman if he had the power to cure all the world's diseases but one innocent child had to die in the process - would he do it.

Jackman's character said no. SMH.

I guess it boils downs to two options: preserve the innocence or destroy the pain.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

I think personal autonomy wouldn't really matter with such a decision. Not to me anyway. The consequences far outweigh any considerations of personal autonomy. Would you be saying that you wouldn't push the button for reasons of personal autonomy if the balance of existing beings having an obviously really terrible time vs beings having a generally great time was 99 to 1? What if it was literally one being having a great time at the expense of everyone else at the universe? You still wouldn't press the button? I don't think what's most important in the universe is for me personally to never violate someone's consent.

Putting the appeals to emotion aside, none of this addresses my fundamental issue, which is that I do not believe that any one being should have the power to make such a decision on behalf of others. Who is to decide what "an obviously really terrible time" is, and what do they base their assessment on? The implication that a scenario exists where one would be justified in imposing their will on others, even if it's supposed to be for their own good, is something I reject. It is the same argument that is bandied about by pro-lifers constantly, and it's not something I find persuasive in the slightest.

Now, you do respond to my issue here, by saying that it wouldn't be an issue for you, which is fair enough. You wouldn't have a problem imposing your will on others if you deemed the situation to be bad enough. But what if you're not in the driver's seat? Imagine a Green Button somewhere, which would make every being immortal. Someone else has their finger on it, and they are absolutely convinced that life is sacred and worth preserving at any cost. Would you be OK with that? What if the people living a good life outweigh the ones who suffer 99 to 1? What if there was literally only one sentient being in the universe who was suffering, and everyone else was having a great time at their expense? Would you be OK with the button being pressed if you were on the side of the happy people? What about if you were on the side of those who suffer?

This argument reminded me of a fantastic short story by Ursula K. Le Guin, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas (PDF warning). A very thought-provoking take on this topic, and a great read that I can't recommend enough.

I think personal autonomy is only ever a really strong argument if it's one person deciding about their own life only. Then, yes, do what you want, it's your own life. If your decisions have consequences that directly affect others, or if your ability to make those decisions hinges on the existence of some unethical system which can't be brought down without violating your consent, then I don't see why personal autonomy should trump all other considerations. If it's an evil system, then I'm all for bringing it down, even if those that are sitting at the top are against it.

Again, how would you respond to the opposite situation, where your life and autonomy are deemed a worthy sacrifice in the pursuit of someone else's vision of how things ought to be? You talk about unethical and evil systems in the absolute, as if we all somehow know what is unethical and what is evil, and everyone agrees with your definition. But plenty of people out there consider that assisted dying is evil, or that birth control and abortions are evil. Are they justified in their efforts to "bring it all down" even against the stated desires and personal autonomy of others?

 

[OutOfTheVoid]

A friend of mine is pro-mortalist. She thinks life entails suffering. So she'd definitely hit the Red Buttton, if it means all life ends instantly & painlessly

This philosophy's interesting & valuable. The universe is indeed brutal, many animals must maul each other every few days -- or die of hunger. Humans theoretically can act differently, but in many ways we're far worse than the others. Not only do our diets create massive suffering for animals, we're unnecessarily terrible to each other. And we're already poking horrific Red Buttons. (Nukes, environmental collapse, etc)

I think those who "love life" have a burden: make life worth living. At our tech level, we can do it. So they should make a world where everyone has food, shelter and other freedoms. And not harm other animals whenever feasible

(This applies to me too)

not a fan of the 'red button' idea. sure i agree that suffering is an inherent and inevitable consequence of existence, and being antinatalist i believe it is unethical to bring new life into existence. but it is horribly cruel to kill an already living being, let alone to mass-genocide all life. i dont trust anyone who would press the 'red button'

 

[odradek]

A friend of mine is pro-mortalist. She thinks life entails suffering. So she'd definitely hit the Red Buttton, if it means all life ends instantly & painlessly

This philosophy's interesting & valuable. The universe is indeed brutal, many animals must maul each other every few days -- or die of hunger. Humans theoretically can act differently, but in many ways we're far worse than the others. Not only do our diets create massive suffering for animals, we're unnecessarily terrible to each other. And we're already poking horrific Red Buttons. (Nukes, environmental collapse, etc)

I think those who "love life" have a burden: make life worth living. At our tech level, we can do it. So they should make a world where everyone has food, shelter and other freedoms. And not harm other animals whenever feasible

(This applies to me too)

I think it's important to remember that our perspective on "suffering" is limited as humans. Our perspective on existence is limited. Everyone's suffering here is real valid and deserves remedy, I'm not trying to say otherwise. However, we live on one planet and we don't even know everything about wtf is going on here. If you sit back and think, what do humans really know in the scope of the universe? I'd argue nothing. Therefore if the question is ending all life in the universe? I think it's laughablely hubristic of humans to think that:
1. They have the knowledge to make that call and
2. Any human ever, from evolution to extinction, would be able to fully comprehend the question enough to make a reasonablely informed decision.

To me, it would be bananas to even think you or anyone could press it. Pressing this button is an anti-chioce position imo.

 

[SexyIncél]

Hmm, if a decision is moral enough, I'd support it despite its decisionmaking process. So I'd push the Purple Button that gives everyone more freedom. Even though it'd horrify people atop dominance hierarchies

And anyway, a tiny minority of people already get to poke Red Buttons. If we're against that, does that mean we all should suddenly become anarchists, making decisions by consensus?

Maybe it's best to threaten to push the Red Button if we don't clean up our act. Turning it into the Purple Button. And if people can't implement freedom, let's clear the board and wait millions of years for life to pop up again. Hopefully they deserve it more than we do

 

[the_town_manager]

Putting the appeals to emotion aside, none of this addresses my fundamental issue, which is that I do not believe that any one being should have the power to make such a decision on behalf of others.

It was a thought experiment just like the original red button scenario, not an appeal to emotion. If you're willing to entertain one obviously unrealistic thought experiment then why scrunch up your nose at these modified versions?

I was trying to figure out if your principle on this is absolute. It seems to be, which to me is totally absurd. That makes the locus of moral significance in the universe lie in whether you specifically violate anyone's consent or not instead of the actual consequences of your decisions. Even in the scenario where the number of consent violations would be greater if you don't push the button, you still wouldn't push it because in the other scenario it would be you causing the violations. Why in the world would that be the most important factor?

Would you be OK with that?

No, of course not. But what is that supposed to prove? It's the specifics of the situation that matter, not just the form of the argument. The existence of disagreements doesn't prove anything either. I simply think they're wrong and I'm right.

I don't ascribe any special moral significance to the distinction between the consequences of action vs inaction. So for me the "do nothing" option is just as much me making a decision as the "press the button" one. There is no "don't make a choice" option once the button exists. So all I can do is look at the consequences of my choice and decide which I find preferable. There's not even an iota of doubt in my mind that the system is evil and deserves to be brought down.

I think the red button scenario is the exact moral equivalent of the green button scenario where if you push the green button, another universe with the same balance of harm/benefit, suffering/pleasure, victims/victimizers as our one will be created. I would press the red button for the exact same reason I wouldn't press the green button. The stakes are the exact same. It's of no significance whatsoever that in one situation I'd be taking an active role in snuffing out a world and in the other one I simply wouldn't be creating one.

This argument reminded me of a fantastic short story by Ursula K. Le Guin, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas (PDF warning). A very thought-provoking take on this topic, and a great read that I can't recommend enough

Yes, I love it as well. But my takeaway from the story is seemingly the exact opposite from yours. I can't imagine defending the system the story is set up on as anything other than grossly immoral. You wouldn't push the red button in that scenario?

Of course that system is still vastly preferable to the actual one the universe is set up on, where instead of only one kid being tortured for the happiness of others, there's an infinity of such creatures. But it does a good job in making the facts of the matter especially stark. All pleasure always ultimately rests on the suffering of others.

 

[LastFlowers]

Pro-mortalism strikes me as tricky position to defend, philosophically. Even David Benatar, famous as he is for promoting antinatalism, won't touch pro-mortalism with a 10 foot pole, saying that "life is not worth starting", but if it's already started then it's not worth terminating.

(On a personal note, that made me lose a fair deal of the respect I had for Benatar's work.)

In any case, I don't have a fundamental problem with pro-mortalism. But it has a particular ethical implication that I haven't seen addressed in a convincing (to me, at least) way—how do you reconcile "ending all life to prevent suffering" with the mental suffering such a prospect would have on those who do wish to carry on living? The usual argument to that seems to be "once everyone is dead, they won't be able to care one way or the other", which is true enough. I suppose my issue is not with the results of pushing the button, but with how one could be so hubristically convinced that their position is correct, to the point where they'd feel justified in overriding the will and desires of close to 8 billion of other members of their species.

Now, is this an argument against pro-mortalism itself? I don't think so. Rather, I feel like it's a problem with how the argument has been formulated. Either way, it's something to think about.

Clearly a topic that demands more thoughtfulness than I have at my disposal today.

But offhand,
let's say there were ten people.
Myself excluded.
9/10 of those people wished to continue on existing until their natural end, they claimed to possess lives worth living and were adamant about the dreams they were in the process of fulfilling.
1/10 of those people were suffering immensely, they also once had dreams they were set on fulfilling, but such opportunities and luck were denied to them and now the only consolation they could hope for in their helplessness would be an external "act of God", a swift end to their harrowing predicament.

If you were to present me with a red button that would end the suffering of that one person out of ten people- with the caveat that it would also end the lives of the other nine people..

I would press the button.

Now include myself in there.
But offer me a fitting spot (fate) alongside either the 90% or the 10%…perhaps it's a coin toss.

Before the coin drops? The fear of the unknown..
I press the button.

After the coin drops, leaving me alike to the 10%?
Obviously I press the button.

After the coin drops, leaving me alike to the 90%?

Maybe I pause..maybe I feel the heat of my own desires and the prospect of bringing them into fruition..maybe I roll around the possibility of ignoring that lonely, tormented stranger before me..convince myself that it's okay to "take what's mine" while I deny any right to so much as a fraction of that..to that sole sufferer.

Personally..in the end, unless I had no qualms about living on as a raging, sadistic hypocrite..I'm going to press that button.

Change the percentages..I'm still going to press that button.
And if I did NOT press the button, it would have just as much-if not more-to do with my own hubris or selfishness as it would for believing I knew better in pressing it.

I mean you could also compare it to the abortion arguments, like 'The Violinist' thought experiment.

Excerpt from Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion:

-You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous -

https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm


(You need only move some components around and ask yourself..)
Why are all these people, present and future, bound to suffering just to fill the roles of necessary sacrifices for those who believe they have a right to life or to the spoils of said life, at another's expense?

Because ultimately, that's the inevitability of life, now and onward.
Some people will be forced to endure abject suffering in order for others to bask in anything outside of that.
Not only do human beings not live in a vacuum, devoid of collision or painful juxtaposition so as to never set off chain reactions or cause direct or indirect suffering to other people..but most of what makes life fulfilling to one person, can only result by starving something else of another person.
It doesn't matter how many safety measures or more compassionate methods of euthanasia are put into place.
Sure, it's a start, but when?
And who gets fucked over in the meantime?
Who is forced to suffer enough to require that option in the first place?
I know there is already a wealth of suffering at my own back, beneath my own feet.
Whether I had the means to make the most of my life or not, I resent being here for that fact alone.

You cannot have someone attempt to justify life or the continuation of a life, without them having to also admit some tandem and backwards permission & requirement of incredibly unwelcome suffering ahead, behind, or right alongside it.
There will always be someone out there whose only way out of the fucked up cycle, is someone or something pressing that red button.
(And on that note, those who would appreciate it being pressed are not necessarily denying anyone else any more than is being denied of them.)

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

I was trying to figure out if your principle on this is absolute. It seems to be, which to me is totally absurd. That makes the locus of moral significance in the universe lie in whether you specifically violate anyone's consent or not instead of the actual consequences of your decisions.
[...]
The existence of disagreements doesn't prove anything either. I simply think they're wrong and I'm right.

I think this is our main point of disagreement. The point of this hypothetical is whether one would be willing to impose one's will on everyone else for their own good. "Life is suffering, and suffering is undesirable, so I will do everyone a favour and end existence." I find that level of self-assuredness in one's views almost impressive. "I think they're wrong and I'm right" isn't the sort of argument that I find convincing, especially as an attempt to justify doing something that you wouldn't want others to do to you.

Yes, I love it as well. But my takeaway from the story is seemingly the exact opposite from yours. I can't imagine defending the system the story is set up on as anything other than grossly immoral. You wouldn't push the red button in that scenario?

My takeaway from the story is that these issues are way more complex than "they're wrong and I'm right". That is the realisation of the citizens who decide to walk away from their utopia. Most turn a blind eye and go back to enjoying life. The ones who leave don't go on a rampage through the city or drop a nuclear bomb of righteous anger to annihilate every soul there. Should they? Maybe, maybe not. Would it do anything for the child? Probably not.

Personally, I still wouldn't push the button to erase Omelas from existence. Like in every other instance, I lack the arrogance to think that my views are obviously better than everyone else's, and that it is my right or duty to impose them onto others.

None of this is to "defend the system", mind you. I just think that we're approaching the subject from two fundamentally different positions. I believe in an ethical imperative to reduce suffering as much as possible, and I think this is entirely compatible with respecting personal autonomy. I would be in favour of giving everyone a little Red Button that they could push to instantly and painlessly end their own existence, but I still haven't read an argument that would convince me that pushing the Big Red Button is in any way justifiable.

 

[the_town_manager]

Like in every other instance, I lack the arrogance to think that my views are obviously better than everyone else's, and that it is my right or duty to impose them onto others.

I think it's a self-flattering spin on the situation to say that you lack the arrogance. You're making a choice either way, you're just using the difference between action/inaction as a cop-out from having to feel responsibility. You're willing to stake absolutely all consequences on there being an extremely important distinction between the two, but it's actually completely self-centered to do so. It is not your act of pressing the button that matters inherently, it's the consequences of doing it vs not doing it.

 

[LastFlowers]

If such a thing existed, I'd mash that button so hard it would get stuck in the down position.

I'd think of all the girls and women that have been kidnapped and are being held captive right now in sex trafficking rings.

All of the hungry, homeless people. People with limbs blown off in war. People who are falsely imprisoned.

I'd prioritize the ending of their suffering over the people who are enjoying life.

Suffice to say that the ones who want to live have already experienced a fairly decent existence. And the ones who haven't still believe in heaven, so they'll be fine once they make it to their beloved afterlife.

I'd smash it too.

But I am tempted to play devil's advocate in one way..I hate how many people are stripped of closure.
It's really besides the point, because it's going to be denied to so many people regardless of whether one person is afforded it or not.
Just like so many other things.

But for instance, let's say one of those human trafficking victims was an hour away from being rescued and reunited with their family..if the news of a missing child was just minutes from being delivered to a parent who dedicated decades to trying to find their kid..if a loved one was just about to share something with you that you thought your ears or eyes would never have the chance to behold- an incredibly relieving revelation or secret epiphany that would light up your eyes one last time before the end.
But alas..the button gets pressed right before any of those things are able to occur.

Doesn't change or even undermine my own position (unless someone chose to linger on the concern superficially), but it's just something I think about.

It is indeed an interesting argument. Still- I know I couldn't do it because ultimately- I respect autonomy. To say- 'I know best- you should all die with me' seems just as bad as the normies insisting that we should hang on to life. As difficult as it is for us to comprehend- some people and animals seem to enjoy life to the greater extent. It seems like God level judgement to me and I'm not a God.

Interesting that you said this since in my own comment I related an argument well known to be in favor of bodily autonomy to the very notion of ending all life as we know it.
Simply by examining the thought experiment from a different vantage point.

Is autonomy, as we commonly describe it, even a given to begin with?
Some have more means to self-govern than others, some people's idea of autonomy means stripping or chipping away at the autonomy of those outside themselves.

While pressing the button in some people's mind, might be disrespecting others' autonomy..it could just as well end the suffering that comes along with the lives of those who were denied their rights to autonomy (and the general pursuit of happiness).

Suffering without autonomy just so others can continue to thrive with it?
Seems a bit absurd.

I just think that "No, it's not right because autonomy should be respected" is too simple a statement.

I think the argument for pressing the button still respects autonomy in the sense that it's acknowledging (and wanting to obliterate) the torment that occurs when so many people are invariably forced to live without said autonomy.

I'd argue that not pushing it doesn't count as "forcing a position"

I would argue that it does.
The button is not hidden, it's been presented in plain view and now the burden of power and knowledge of its ability resides with the person who it was presented to.

There are only two choices, each is forcing your own position on the rest of humanity (life).

If we argued that walking away from the default while having the power to do otherwise, wasn't as much a choice and a position with effects as was the opposite, then we would have to walk back the entire idea of "the Good Samaritan" and similar pushes to intercede in daily life.

I'd say the mere notion of that is dangerous, a slippery slope, and spits in the face of every human intervention that ever took place.

If someone a few feet from me was offered a gun while I was being strung up and physically tortured by a sadist, I would certainly have a bone to pick with them if they decided to walk away rather than sit up and shoot the perpetrator.
(In fact, they may end up convicted for a lesser offense despite simply letting what was going to play out, play out.)
In this button scenario, the perpetrator is life itself.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

I think it's a self-flattering spin on the situation to say that you lack the arrogance. You're making a choice either way, you're just using the difference between action/inaction as a cop-out from having to feel responsibility. You're willing to stake absolutely all consequences on there being an extremely important distinction between the two, but it's actually completely self-centered to do so. It is not your act of pressing the button that matters inherently, it's the consequences of doing it vs not doing it.

Is it wise to take action when I do not actually know the consequences of doing it? If I'm 100% convinced that my views are the truth, then I suppose it makes sense to push the button. I just don't deal in those levels of certainty, and I'm honestly fairly suspicious of anyone who claims to do so. This has turned into a trolley problem, essentially: taken at face value you either pull the lever or you don't, and that's all there is to it. But human minds do not live in a perfect binary world, and the answers aren't nearly as simple as "yes/no", so pretending that one can find a logical, well-reasoned answer to a reductionist problem like that, an answer that everyone can agree on, is quite fanciful.

Now, you're within your rights to consider my argument a cop-out. You're not the first one to do so. I happen to disagree, but at this point it's quite evident that we're approaching the problem from completely different directions, and we're starting to argue in circles, so I'm going to leave it here. I thank you for taking the time to respond. Even though we disagree, I always enjoy engaging with different views, and you've given me some food for thought. I don't believe my concerns have been addressed, but it was an enjoyable chat nonetheless.

 

[the_town_manager]

Is it wise to take action when I do not actually know the consequences of doing it? If I'm 100% convinced that my views are the truth, then I suppose it makes sense to push the button. I just don't deal in those levels of certainty, and I'm honestly fairly suspicious of anyone who claims to do so. This has turned into a trolley problem, essentially: taken at face value you either pull the lever or you don't, and that's all there is to it. But human minds do not live in a perfect binary world, and the answers aren't nearly as simple as "yes/no", so pretending that one can find a logical, well-reasoned answer to a reductionist problem like that, an answer that everyone can agree on, is quite fanciful.

Now, you're within your rights to consider my argument a cop-out. You're not the first one to do so. I happen to disagree, but at this point it's quite evident that we're approaching the problem from completely different directions, and we're starting to argue in circles, so I'm going to leave it here. I thank you for taking the time to respond. Even though we disagree, I always enjoy engaging with different views, and you've given me some food for thought. I don't believe my concerns have been addressed, but it was an enjoyable chat nonetheless.

Yeah, I think I had exhausted pretty much all I had to say. Good talking to you. :) I hope I didn't come across as too combative or belligerent. Ultimately I don't think this is a topic that matters a whole lot in terms of the real world since the red button obviously doesn't actually exist, but I enjoy thinking about more fanciful ethical ideas and figuring out what my principles are. Or just arguing for those principles when they go against the "common sense" ideas. I do happen to think the answer to this one is pretty clear-cut, more so than in the case of the trolley problem or many other smaller scale ethical dilemmas. There are really no unknown consequences to consider here, the terms of the question really do just boil down to a simple yes/no answer as far as I'm concerned.

Btw, nice username, custom title and pfp. A trifecta of Darkthrone/black metal references. :) Darkthrone's one of my favorites. I prefer Panzerfaust to Transilvanian Hunger as an album but Skald av Satans Sol might be my favorite song of theirs. And the title track is up there as well.

 

[bpdblackout]

What stops a true pro-mortalist from CTB?

I truely don't understand how someone could fully believe that and live one more day past coming to that conclusion.

If I believed that, I'd be gone yesterday.

Def not the most optimistic person, but dang I have a tiny sliver of hope that life can have good in it.

 

[SexyIncél]

What stops a true pro-mortalist from CTB?

You could have an otherwise happy life, yet empathize with the cruelties others face. Such people often become activists, eat vegan, etc. You might decide to stick around and fight to improve things

Consider a cat playing with a bloodied mouse. From the mouse's perspective, the cat's probably a giant Freddy Krueger

Imagine you're an observer from Mars. Those earthlings have a bloodbath going on, a real horror show. Simple empathy for those hunted fellows might cause you to immediately hit the Red Button. Every moment you ponder, another creature gets raped or ripped apart

 

[SamTam33]

What stops a true pro-mortalist from CTB?

I truely don't understand how someone could fully believe that and live one more day past coming to that conclusion.

If I believed that, I'd be gone yesterday.

Def not the most optimistic person, but dang I have a tiny sliver of hope that life can have good in it.

In 2020, there were 1.2m recorded suicide attempts in the US. A little over 45k were successful (doesn't factor in the ones that weren't reported or made to look like accidents).

That's a 4% success rate. Four percent.

The odds are what stops most from CTB'ing. It's why we spend so much time on this board obsessing over methods. We want to get it right.

Look at all the stories of previous attempts gone wrong (I've had 6 proper attempts myself).

It's not a matter of wanting something, then voila - it happens.

Even if we didn't want to ctb, there are other things we want and can't attain.

I've spent countless hours applying for and interviewing for jobs. Gonna try and submit 15 more applications before the weekend is over. But nothing has come of it.

People want a loving partner or a spouse - doesn't mean they'll get one. People want to be successful in their business endeavors - doesn't mean they will be.

So just believing in pro-mortalism or wanting to ctb is not nearly enough to make it a reality.

Nothing about this existence is ever that simple.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

Btw, nice username, custom title and pfp. A trifecta of Darkthrone/black metal references. :) Darkthrone's one of my favorites. I prefer Panzerfaust to Transilvanian Hunger as an album but Skald av Satans Sol might be my favorite song of theirs. And the title track is up there as well.

Thanks! Most days I tend to prefer A Blaze in the Northern Sky and Panzerfaust over Transilvanian Hunger, but it's the album I was listening to when I filled out the registration form, and thought it would be a good user name to choose. Still, I'll gladly listen to early Darkthrone no matter which album it is.