Discussion The pro-mortalist point of view.

[Forever Sleep]

I was replying in a thread by FuneralCry but, I took so long to do it that by the time I tried to post it, the thread was locked.

I just wanted to say this about the pro-mortalist viewpoint and why it's pretty much useless to try and argue with it: (I've found.)

You didnt answer my question. Should we allow people under the influence of drugs or mania or psychosis to commit ctb if they wanted to? Your human rights question is incredibly useless. Of course I would allow human rights to folks with low iq. Whats your point? Answer my question. I have asked you this 3 times already

I'm obviously not the member you're debating with but, I just wanted to say this regarding all members that are pro-mortalist...

I used to do this too- try and argue the finer points... Why assisted suicide in particular likely won't ever be available to all, no questions asked. Unless things change dramatically in the world I suppose.

Why- even from a practicality point of view, parents would have something to say if they're 12 year old went off to school one day, did a bunk and got themselves euthanized. Just practically- it's obvious it wouldn't work.

However, regarding the safeguarding side of things, I think you have to bear in mind: Pro-mortalists see zero value in life. Many in fact see direct harm in living. It's all suffering according to them.

So- as the description suggests- pro-death- they see death as the best result for anyone and everyone. No matter who, how old, what circumstances. I imagine in their eyes- the younger the better- save themselves some time here suffering. So, with that mindset- there aren't going to be exceptions.

Doesn't matter what other people think of their lives. They apparently know the truth and that is- death is anyone's best option. They'll in fact go further to say to not see life that way- that person is delusional. So- I guess I'm trying to say- you can't effectively argue with that midset. It's every bit as rigid as the pro-life mindset. If there is one right answer = death, it won't matter to them how the person got to it.

It's debatable whether they have a point of course. Ultimately, do you think you can regret killing yourself? Is that even possible do you suppose? That's what we're talking about, surely? Killing yourself when you weren't in your right mind or, you were (debatably) too young to fully comprehend the decision means you nullify any future for yourself. Whether that could have been full of joy or misery. But- what are the ramifications for that on that person do you suppose? They're dead...

Depends on whether you believe you can experience thoughts and emotions after death to be able to regret things I suppose. Or- if you perhaps think there are larger, cosmic implications when someone leaves early. Really though- pro-lifers may not want to admit it but they're worried about themselves- surely? If they thought it through, they'd surely realise that that person isn't now able to lament their missed potential in life. Anyhow- that's playing devil's advocate to say, the pro-mortalists maybe have a point. (In my view.) To clarify my own position though- I agree with you. I think assisted suicide does need safe guards.

But, when someone is 100% convinced that something is bad. 100% convinced that the only thing that thing will bring is pain and suffering- they're unlikely to want to allow anyone to choose that thing- for their own good. For the pro-life people- that thing is suicide. For pro-mortalists- it's life. They're polar opposites but weirdly similar in that they rely entirely on that person's own opinion that they then project on to everyone else and think that's reasonable. Ultimately- they're not interested in the counter opinion because they think it's delusional. That goes for both sides.

To be fair to even our most pro-mortalist members though- ultimately I'd still say most are pro-choice. They may think a person's (anyone's) best option is death but ultimately, they'll likely still respect that person's own right to choose for themselves.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

Genuine question, how would you define pro mortalism? I keep on seeing different definitions of it made by people. Is it believing that it'd be better for all humans to never have been born or is it the belief that death should be obtained as early as possible once someone is alive or is it something else?

 

[DreamEnd]

I was replying in a thread by FuneralCry but, I took so long to do it that by the time I tried to post it, the thread was locked.

I just wanted to say this about the pro-mortalist viewpoint and why it's pretty much useless to try and argue with it: (I've found.)



I'm obviously not the member you're debating with but, I just wanted to say this regarding all members that are pro-mortalist...

I used to do this too- try and argue the finer points... Why assisted suicide in particular likely won't ever be available to all, no questions asked. Unless things change dramatically in the world I suppose.

Why- even from a practicality point of view, parents would have something to say if they're 12 year old went off to school one day, did a bunk and got themselves euthanized. Just practically- it's obvious it wouldn't work.

However, regarding the safeguarding side of things, I think you have to bear in mind: Pro-mortalists see zero value in life. Many in fact see direct harm in living. It's all suffering according to them.

So- as the description suggests- pro-death- they see death as the best result for anyone and everyone. No matter who, how old, what circumstances. I imagine in their eyes- the younger the better- save themselves some time here suffering. So, with that mindset- there aren't going to be exceptions.

Doesn't matter what other people think of their lives. They apparently know the truth and that is- death is anyone's best option. They'll in fact go further to say to not see life that way- that person is delusional. So- I guess I'm trying to say- you can't effectively argue with that midset. It's every bit as rigid as the pro-life mindset. If there is one right answer = death, it won't matter to them how the person got to it.

It's debatable whether they have a point of course. Ultimately, do you think you can regret killing yourself? Is that even possible do you suppose? That's what we're talking about, surely? Killing yourself when you weren't in your right mind or, you were (debatably) too young to fully comprehend the decision means you nullify any future for yourself. Whether that could have been full of joy or misery. But- what are the ramifications for that on that person do you suppose? They're dead...

Depends on whether you believe you can experience thoughts and emotions after death to be able to regret things I suppose. Or- if you perhaps think there are larger, cosmic implications when someone leaves early. Really though- pro-lifers may not want to admit it but they're worried about themselves- surely? If they thought it through, they'd surely realise that that person isn't now able to lament their missed potential in life. Anyhow- that's playing devil's advocate to say, the pro-mortalists maybe have a point. (In my view.) To clarify my own position though- I agree with you. I think assisted suicide does need safe guards.

But, when someone is 100% convinced that something is bad. 100% convinced that the only thing that thing will bring is pain and suffering- they're unlikely to want to allow anyone to choose that thing- for their own good. For the pro-life people- that thing is suicide. For pro-mortalists- it's life. They're polar opposites but weirdly similar in that they rely entirely on that person's own opinion that they then project on to everyone else and think that's reasonable. Ultimately- they're not interested in the counter opinion because they think it's delusional. That goes for both sides.

To be fair to even our most pro-mortalist members though- ultimately I'd still say most are pro-choice. They may think a person's (anyone's) best option is death but ultimately, they'll likely still respect that person's own right to choose for themselves.

Yes very well put. I agree with you. Do you think the premise of pro mortalist as relies on the fact that they are convinced that death is better than life? Sounds kind of Christian with a darker undertone lmao

 

[Captive_Mind515]

I find the pro-mortalist viewpoint to be extreme, yet highly logical too.

The pro-life viewpoint is very often extreme and highly illogical.

I read/watch quite a lot about this stuff offsite, including anti-natalism, efilism etc. It certainly informs my views on my own life. But I would feel uneasy pushing these discussions too much in here, because I respect that it's a pro-choice platform.

 

[4g1vvvven]

However, regarding the safeguarding side of things, I think you have to bear in mind: Pro-mortalists see zero value in life. Many in fact see direct harm in living. It's all suffering according to them.

If you are suicidal, surely you see life as having negative value, that is less than zero value.

Death typically isn't a pleasant experience, maybe if done right with some wonderful set of medications it can be but very few have that option.

Most suicides are surely self funded and painful experiences, this means people make sacrifices to accomplish it.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, although maybe I am, just seems a zero valuation implies indifference, maybe even a neutral disposition.

I think it's up to the individual to estimate the value of their own life isn't it?

I guess if you're advocating for somebody else's involvement it also becomes their business and it's at their discretion whether or not they're comfortable with assisting your suicide.

Sanity, impulsivity, maturity, intelligence, etc. these qualities aren't binary unfortunately.

The pro-choice phrase is interesting to me because it's terminology used in the abortion debate, not sure how people support abortions unconditionally but not the right of someone with a fully formed brain to prematurely end their existence

 

[Tokugawa_Yoshinobu]

Suicide is always correlated with ambiguity about death - as people don't want to die. Yes, even if you are suicidal and made a plan your desire to live on was there at some point and in most a small glimmer of hope that something good could change it all still lives on.

Therefore I dislike this position because it denies the ambiguity about life and death and leaves little room for further contemplation and critical thinking. Pro-life positions are also similar because they end up making a very generalized statement that all life is worth preserving at all costs.

The problem is that I don't think all life is suffering or fulfilling depending on circumstances. It's up to the individual in the end.

 

[DreamEnd]

IThe pro-choice phrase is interesting to me because it's terminology used in the abortion debate, not sure how people support abortions unconditionally but not the right of someone with a fully formed brain to prematurely end their existence

There are a ton of pro choice abortion activists who think like that. I think it mainly comes with the stigma surrounding suicide. But also it's the fact that a fully formed brain isn't the only indicator of the likelihood that a person will commit rational and not impulsive suicide. Things like addictions, mental illness etc they all affect how we think and behave.

 

[4g1vvvven]

There are a ton of pro choice abortion activists who think like that. I think it mainly comes with the stigma surrounding suicide. But also it's the fact that a fully formed brain isn't the only indicator of the likelihood that a person will commit rational and not impulsive suicide. Things like addictions, mental illness etc they all affect how we think and behave.

Addictive and mental health disorders can hugely degrade quality of life though and for some they're both unbeatable. Aren't both of these things largely hereditary?

Some will say you're mentally ill if you're suicidal, if they then say you can't CTB because you're mentally ill, then you've denied that person the right to chose. This circular reasoning seems quite common in psychiatric disciplines.

An addict can surely make reasonable decisions too? We think it's smart to stop serving a drunk man so of-course wouldn't hand lethal drugs to an incredibly high one who had impulsively made the decision mid-trip.

Even stipulating a period of sobriety, some can't bare the toll addiction has taken on them, even if they come out unscathed, some struggle immensely with their own vulnerability and likelihood to relapse.

It's interesting, I think it's sad to deny those who suffer most from the opportunity of peace but that does seem to be the general way of things.

 

[DreamEnd]

Addictive and mental health disorders can hugely degrade quality of life though and for some they're both unbeatable. Aren't both of these things largely hereditary?

No. You can be prone to addiction to substances but for it to be an addictive disorder or substance use disorder you have to actually make the choice to consume the drug.
I'm sure there is someone who has depression run in the family but I think they are a minority. I don't think there is any data on that

Some will say you're mentally ill if you're suicidal, if they then say you can't CTB because you're mentally ill, then you've denied that person the right to chose. This circular reasoning seems quite common in psychiatric disciplines.

Yes I agree. I disagree with that sort of thinking that some psychiatrists have. When I meant mentally ill I meant something severe like schizophrenia or bipolar: a person under manic episodes can have suicidal tendencies that cloud their mind.

An addict can surely make reasonable decisions too? We think it's smart to stop serving a drunk man so of-course wouldn't hand lethal drugs to an incredibly high one who had impulsively made the decision mid-trip.

Idk man I think it depends on how harsh their addiction is.

Even stipulating a period of sobriety, some can't bare the toll addiction has taken on them, even if they come out unscathed, some struggle immensely with their own vulnerability and likelihood to relapse.

In that case I would agree with their decision.

It's interesting, I think it's sad to deny those who suffer most from the opportunity of peace but that does seem to be the general way of things.

Unfortunately this is the way it is because of the stigma surrounding ctb. There seems to be no middle ground right now, it's all skewed to pro life side and that's unfortunate.

 

[SpiritualDeath]

They're polar opposites but weirdly similar in that they rely entirely on that person's own opinion that they then project on to everyone else and think that's reasonable.

Both "prolifeism" and promortalism are views of ethical/value realism/objectivism, which means that we believe there's an objective value system which universally applies to everybody. Value judgements can be objectively right or wrong for reasons we're also interested in finding out. You seem to be a subjectivist/relativist but ethical realism has never been conclusively proven wrong in the field of philosophy and I don't think this whole branch of meta-ethical position can be this easily reduced to "projecting your own opinion onto everyone else" (And actually I see "it's all subjective", "everyone is right" as a form of the Golden Mean Fallacy).

I see promortalism as the logical conclusion to all kinds of philosophical pessimism, especially strong negative utilitarianism, according to which there's no actual positive utility in life. Every pleasure is gained by satisfying a pre-existing need/desire/deprivation/deficit that only exists because you exist. Life is an ultimately useless, futile and unwinnable game since the best thing you can do here is trying to satisfy those endless needs (which are undesirable by definition and is therefore a disutility in and of itself), and avoiding inevitably falling into more disutility that is suffering if you fail to do so. Often times you inevitably cause harm to other people (or animals) when just trying to fill your own holes. It's a pointless Sisyphean struggle at best, an absolutely tortuous hell at worst.

Also, unless you believe in the existence of some God or cosmic purposes (which has zero evidence and is extremely unlikely to be true), there's simply no rational reason for these needs and desires to be continued or imposed on someone else in the first place. You can't make an argument that the non-existence of life somehow harms the universe, and it's also absurd to say that a person is deprived by death or non-existence because there's no need for anything positive in non-existence and no person that can being deprived (the same way as how my table isn't deprived of pleasure/any good things by not being sentient: there's never a need of these things in the first place). We can even argue that the existence of value itself is a disutility just because there's always a possibility for those values to be extremely negative. Therefore we're comparing a state of constant disutility to a state without even the possibility of disutility, and we can safely conclude that the best state for any sentient being is non-existence, that it's best for everyone to not be born at all, and if they're unlucky enough to be born, the sooner they cease to exist the better (less bad).

There's lots of understandable psychological reasons why a person may turn out to value life though. Humans are not perfectly rational animals. Pollyanna Principle is a thing. Optimism bias is a thing. Adaptation to adversity even Stockholm Syndrome is a thing. We're basically dopamine addicts, getting really involved in chasing the useless cheese and hysterically afraid of death. There's no rational reason for this hysteria, and we didn't choose it. We didn't choose to have SI that makes death so unnecessarily difficult. It's programmed and imposed on us by 4 billion years DNA evolution. It can be said that we respect others' will to live, yet their choice to continue existence (even bring more people into existence) is an objectively suboptimal one.

 

[Argo]

It's debatable whether they have a point of course. Ultimately, do you think you can regret killing yourself? Is that even possible do you suppose? That's what we're talking about, surely? Killing yourself when you weren't in your right mind or, you were (debatably) too young to fully comprehend the decision means you nullify any future for yourself. Whether that could have been full of joy or misery. But- what are the ramifications for that on that person do you suppose? They're dead...

Sure, you can drink something lethal that is 100% gonna kill and cause loss of consciousness, and right before it's too late, have a total change of heart. We can just safely assumed real cases of this have happened. But we can also assume just in principle, more abstractly, that if people could have known what life would have been like if they continued, they would have preferred that over death(this is harder to wrap one's mind around for some especially if one can't get over a seeming logical contradiction around "but they're dead", one just has to relax this and it makes sense, again in principle/abstractly)

To be fair to even our most pro-mortalist members though- ultimately I'd still say most are pro-choice. They may think a person's (anyone's) best option is death but ultimately, they'll likely still respect that person's own right to choose for themselves.

Yeah exactly I think that's true in general and there are gradations of beliefs, like "Soft" promortalists and "Soft" prolifers, etc

 

[4g1vvvven]

No. You can be prone to addiction to substances but for it to be an addictive disorder or substance use disorder you have to actually make the choice to consume the drug.
I'm sure there is someone who has depression run in the family but I think they are a minority. I don't think there is any data on that

OK I see that to become an alcoholic you have to start drinking but I believe what is inherited is the likelihood you will become addicted, I imagine the speed and severity of your addiction would at-least be in part genetically determined too.

Perhaps I'm too guilty of blaming genetics, this was actually one of the main things I discussed doing therapy a couple years back.

Depressive disorders can vary a lot, I appreciate you disagreeing here tbh, It would be good to be wrong here.

I think however there is compelling data that there is a genetic component, most people may understand depression as situational or triggered and it often is but if our somatic and neurological responses are basically inherited then some may be damned to begin with surely?

It all seems very complicated

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6065213/

 

[DreamEnd]

Both "prolifeism" and promortalism are views of ethical/value realism/objectivism, which means that we believe there's an objective value system which universally applies to everybody. Value judgements can be objectively right or wrong for reasons we're also interested in finding out. You seem to be a subjectivist/relativist but ethical realism has never been conclusively proven wrong in the field of philosophy and I don't think this whole branch of meta-ethical position can be this easily reduced to "projecting your own opinion onto everyone else" (And actually I see "it's all subjective", "everyone is right" as a form of the Golden Mean Fallacy).

I see promortalism as the logical conclusion to all kinds of philosophical pessimism, especially strong negative utilitarianism, according to which there's no actual positive utility in life. Every pleasure is gained by satisfying a pre-existing need/desire/deprivation/deficit that only exists because you exist. Life is an ultimately useless, futile and unwinnable game since the best thing you can do here is trying to satisfy those endless needs (which are undesirable by definition and is therefore a disutility in and of itself), and avoiding inevitably falling into more disutility that is suffering if you fail to do so. Often times you inevitably cause harm to other people (or animals) when just trying to fill your own holes. It's a pointless Sisyphean struggle at best, an absolutely tortuous hell at worst.

Also, unless you believe in the existence of some God or cosmic purposes (which has zero evidence and is extremely unlikely to be true), there's simply no rational reason for these needs and desires to be continued or imposed on someone else in the first place. You can't make an argument that the non-existence of life somehow harms the universe, and it's also absurd to say that a person is deprived by death or non-existence because there's no need for anything positive in non-existence and no person that can being deprived (the same way as how my table isn't deprived of pleasure/any good things by not being sentient: there's never a need of these things in the first place). We can even argue that the existence of value itself is a disutility just because there's always a possibility for those values to be extremely negative. Therefore we're comparing a state of constant disutility to a state without even the possibility of disutility, and we can safely conclude that the best state for any sentient being is non-existence, that it's best for everyone to not be born at all, and if they're unlucky enough to be born, the sooner they cease to exist the better (less bad).

There's lots of understandable psychological reasons why a person may turn out to value life though. Humans are not perfectly rational animals. Pollyanna Principle is a thing. Optimism bias is a thing. Adaptation to adversity even Stockholm Syndrome is a thing. We're basically dopamine addicts, getting really involved in chasing the useless cheese and hysterically afraid of death. There's no rational reason for this hysteria, and we didn't choose it. We didn't choose to have SI that makes death so unnecessarily difficult. It's programmed and imposed on us by 4 billion years DNA evolution. It can be said that we respect others' will to live, yet their choice to continue existence (even bring more people into existence) is an objectively suboptimal one.

When you look at it that way, of course life is pointless since everyone you are going to love, everything you are going to gain will be lost. But nevertheless, people still play that game and not because of the fear of death or SI but because some people enjoy it and find meaning in it. If you are given the chance to play why ultimately quit? Why not try to see what you can do and if it doesn't turn out the way you want you always have the option to turn it off.
Also you assume we know what is after death. You can't make any claims regarding non existence or existence of consciousness because it simply isn't possible. So you can't say you will regret it or you will not. No body knows. And if nobody knows then the best way to go is play to the best of your ability with the cards you were given.

All people have their own experience of life. Some people enjoy it some don't. Acting like you have some sort of moral superiority over deciding the great meaning of life and if it's gonna be worth it for someone to be born is absolutely fruitless. Some people live lives I can only dream of and I doubt they think of death at all but you would probably think of them as deluded which is your own subjective opinion.

 

[SpiritualDeath]

But nevertheless, people still play that game and not because of the fear of death or SI but because some people enjoy it and find meaning in it.

That's exactly what I was talking about. We get so involved in chasing the cheese that we don't see our needs as a disutility, but that doesn't necessarily make it anything more, since even the most happy people cannot argue how their happiness has any net utility to the universe, besides just filling pre-existing needs and holes that only exist because life exists, and how they can justify the hell that many other people and animals are going through just for the sake of their continued existence (in life if you want to have a temporary winner, you have to simultaneously create losers, and there are almost always many more losers than winners).

Also you assume we know what is after death. You can't make any claims regarding non existence or existence of consciousness because it simply isn't possible.

Well I said if you believe in God or souls that's another story. But anyway I don't see any reason at all to believe that consciousness survives after death, or that before birth there are souls lining up waiting for bodies to be incarnated into, just like there's no reason at all to believe that santa claus or unicorns are real.

Acting like you have some sort of moral superiority over deciding the great meaning of life and if it's gonna be worth it for someone to be born is absolutely fruitless.

My premise is that there's every possibility for ethical realism to be true because it has never been conclusively proven otherwise, which implies that it's possible for any "subjective" value judgements to actually be objectively right or wrong (it's also possible for people to be wrong about their own judgements). That's all I'm saying. If you disagree, then you have to give reasons why ethical realism is wrong, then the debate would be on the subject of meta-ethics instead of promortalism. Also, you just dismissed the philosophy of ethics as a whole, since "deciding the great meaning of life and what is moral or immoral" is basically what everyone there is doing. Not because we "have some sort of moral superiority" over doing this, but because this is what ethics does...It tries to find out how we can approach the subject of value and give reasons for our positions. I just hold a consistent position and am intellectually honest enough to defend it.

 

[DreamEnd]

That's exactly what I was talking about. We get so involved in chasing the cheese that we don't see our needs as a disutility, but that doesn't necessarily make it anything more, since even the most happy people cannot argue how their happiness has any net utility to the universe, besides just filling pre-existing needs and holes that only exist because life exists, and how they can justify the hell that many other people and animals are going through just for the sake of their continued existence (in life if you want to have a temporary winner, you have to simultaneously create losers, and there are almost always many more losers than winners).

well not everyone is chasing the cheese and not everyone lives at the expense of other people. And why would people care about how their happiness affects the universe? Most people just want to be happy themselves. Yes some people have needs and desires and love fulfilling them. Like building a family, getting married having kids. I dont see how thats a negative thing? Just because there is no general utility to their actions does not mean that they are not benefitting from them. Everyone's different. everyones needs are different. I dont understand how you can paint all of them the same way.

Well I said if you believe in God or souls that's another story. But anyway I don't see any reason at all to believe that consciousness survives after death, or that before birth there are souls lining up waiting for bodies to be incarnated into, just like there's no reason at all to believe that santa claus or unicorns are real.

Well, while we are alive we can see, feel and think and realize the story of santa claus flying into everybody's chimney is impossible. We cant make the same claim about life after death simply because it isnt possible to make such a claim.

My premise is that there's every possibility for ethical realism to be true because it has never been conclusively proven otherwise, which implies that it's possible for any "subjective" value judgements to actually be objectively right or wrong (it's also possible for people to be wrong about their own judgements). That's all I'm saying. If you disagree, then you have to give reasons why ethical realism is wrong, then the debate would be on the subject of meta-ethics instead of promortalism. Also, you just dismissed the philosophy of ethics as a whole, since "deciding the great meaning of life and what is moral or immoral" is basically what everyone there is doing. Not because we "have some sort of moral superiority" over doing this, but because this is what ethics does...It tries to find out how we can approach the subject of value and give reasons for our positions. I just hold a consistent position and am intellectually honest enough to defend it.

I dont disagree how ethical realism could be wrong. It could be true, I dont know. I just dont understand how you can create your own value to life and then apply that value to everyone and then decide whether living is worth it or not. Isn't it up to individuals to decide?

 

[Forever Sleep]

Genuine question, how would you define pro mortalism? I keep on seeing different definitions of it made by people. Is it believing that it'd be better for all humans to never have been born or is it the belief that death should be obtained as early as possible once someone is alive or is it something else?

I'd imagine it's both really- preferably, I expect they would prefer nothing to have become alive to begin with but, failing that- I imagine death at the earliest opportunity. I'm no expert of course. That's just my interpretation of the members views here. But basically- pro-death in all circumstances.

That's not to say though that they would push someone into doing it. I don't think anyone does that here.

Every pleasure is gained by satisfying a pre-existing need/desire/deprivation/deficit that only exists because you exist.

True- but we do exist (you can't reverse that) and as soon as we do exist and mature enough, we develop our own value system of life. So- this is what I'm refering to by saying 'projecting' ideas on others. Sure- you can still argue why your ideas are more sound- more ethical in a way. You can argue that the people that place value on life do so from a flawed ideology. But- you simply can't make everything un-exist. Even if you think that would be the best thing for all life.

Plus, if we follow through in action with pro-mortalism- would it be right (if we could) to press that red button to eliminate all life on earth? Even very strong promortalists here perhaps wouldn't want that responsibility at the end of the day.

So the question becomes I suppose- when a lifeform develops sentience and consciousness and forms its own opinions. Seeing that this is all philosophy- theory. Plus, it's a theory in part on the nature of birth, life and death- 2 out of 3, we don't entirely understand. It's still unknown what consciousness really is. It's still unknown whether there is a reason behind any of it. It's still unknown what happens after death. But, regardless of that- I know most promortalists are staunch atheists too and (also) won't consider the possibility of a God, afterlife etc. Is it even possible to insist that a theory is true?

Nevermind human positive bias though. Let's look at animals- which also need to go presumably- because, they suffer too. Do they suffer as much as humans though? What about animals that don't have much of a nervous system? Even those that do. Sure- they can go through horrific, traumatic maulings and yet, survive. Do you suppose they climb a tree and contemplate on how unfair life is? They don't seem to. Most are still too busy trying to survive. They live on instincts it appears a great deal of the time. To us- it may appear brutal. But again- who are we to decide? The other problem I have with promortalism is- it feels like God level thinking to me. It's passing judgement on larger systems that are in place because, we don't like the look of them. Basically- it becomes- is murder ok? Because- it's for the greater good- right?

not everyone lives at the expense of other people.

Just to play devil's advocate here... we do. It's pretty much unavoidable. Have you ever eaten meat? Have you ever bought clothing or commodities made in poorer countries? Do you even know how the animal products you likely did or do consume lived and were killed? Do you know if the person who made your underwear was paid enough of a wage to live on comfortably?

Most of us live and buy stuff and hope for the best. Most of us probably don't even want to know to be honest. Just think about it today though... Everything you use. Everything you buy/bought- do you suppose all the people who had a hand in getting that to you were paid a fair wage? Are you even paid a fair wage or, do you think your employers exploit you where they can? Sadly- this world is based on exploitation. In nature too. It's very difficult to avoid that- unless of course, you go and live off grid some place and become entirely self sufficient.

 

[SexyIncél]

Thanks for the explanation!

Both "prolifeism" and promortalism are views of ethical/value realism/objectivism, which means that we believe there's an objective value system which universally applies to everybody. Value judgements can be objectively right or wrong for reasons we're also interested in finding out. You seem to be a subjectivist/relativist but ethical realism has never been conclusively proven wrong in the field of philosophy and I don't think this whole branch of meta-ethical position can be this easily reduced to "projecting your own opinion onto everyone else" (And actually I see "it's all subjective", "everyone is right" as a form of the Golden Mean Fallacy).

Makes sense. An observer from Mars might observe Earth's a horror show where many creatures must tear others apart — or themselves die of hunger. And quite reasonably, feel compelled to push the red button to instantly destroy earthly life & stop the horror show

From a mouse's perspective, a cat's a building-sized Freddy Krueger

You can't make an argument that the non-existence of life somehow harms the universe

Hmm, given we are part of the universe — the universe observing & acting upon itself — I think one can make that argument

Of course, we could certainly imagine our species one day destroying this universe, for various goofy reasons...

And even if the universe has some kind of intention (or super-intention that we can't comprehend, like slugs confronted with my shoe), we do know it's then cruel. Wouldn't be surprised if we're a tragic story made to amuse some organisms

 

[Forever Sleep]

If you are suicidal, surely you see life as having negative value, that is less than zero value.

Death typically isn't a pleasant experience, maybe if done right with some wonderful set of medications it can be but very few have that option.

Most suicides are surely self funded and painful experiences, this means people make sacrifices to accomplish it.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, although maybe I am, just seems a zero valuation implies indifference, maybe even a neutral disposition.

I think it's up to the individual to estimate the value of their own life isn't it?

I guess if you're advocating for somebody else's involvement it also becomes their business and it's at their discretion whether or not they're comfortable with assisting your suicide.

Sanity, impulsivity, maturity, intelligence, etc. these qualities aren't binary unfortunately.

The pro-choice phrase is interesting to me because it's terminology used in the abortion debate, not sure how people support abortions unconditionally but not the right of someone with a fully formed brain to prematurely end their existence

Not necessarily. Some people here value life itself. They may have had good lives up until this point in fact but their current circumstances make them suicidal. People become suicidal for different reasons. I'd argue someone could actually be pro-life but be suicidal.

I imagine it's actually those types of people that suicide clinics welcome with open arms- as in- I only want to die because I have this awful, incurable disease. Otherwise, I'd be out there, enjoying the sunshine. Ironically- suicide clinics aren't keen on accepting people who are pathologically suicidal by the looks of it. (Because they think we're crazy presumably...)

Yes, it's definitely up to the person to judge the value of their own life. I suppose that's what the argument is about though... Pro-lifers will turn to us and say- you're all delussional for thinking life is all constant suffering. Of course- what's worse with them is that, they will do everything they can to stop us to use our autonomy to end our suffering. But- promortalists will also point at 'normies' and say- you're the ones who are delussional!

So basically- it isn't just- this is the way I experience my life. It's more- this is the way all life is. If you don't agree with me- you're 'toxic' or 'delussional'. So no, that doesn't really allow other people to put their own value system on life. Although as I say, not many promortalists insist that everyone must die.

True- pro-choice does come from pro-abortion propoganda. Really- it's better suited to us though I think. It's our own lives we want the power to control. Choosing to have an abortion is making that decision for another lifeform. Of course, so is birthing it into this world! Weird phrase really- neither give that baby a choice! I agree though. Weird to be pro-abortion but anti-assisted suicide.

Debatably, can you be truly pro-choice in terms of supporting autonomy over your own life and be a natilist? Because that (most crucial of choices) is made by the parents- unless we actually do choose to come here from some spirit realm.

Honestly, I have ideas that I can't entirely square in my head. Like- I think choice is the most important gift we have. I'm pro-choice in terms of assisted suicide (although, I do think it needs some regulations.) I'm not promortalist really. I understand it in terms of cold, hard logic but again- I think an individual's right to choose trumps that. But, where I am more promortalist is in being pro-abortion and antinatilist. I think from what we know about life, it's such a risk bringing children here. Especially an unwanted child. I think in those circumstances, it's safer to not take the risk of bringing them here. That's my own negative, cynical perspective talking of course. I don't hate parents. I just hope for the best for them and their offspring.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I'd imagine it's both really- preferably, I expect they would prefer nothing to have become alive to begin with but, failing that- I imagine death at the earliest opportunity. I'm no expert of course. That's just my interpretation of the members views here. But basically- pro-death in all circumstances.

I see. So it's basically believing in what I believe for myself yet generalising that to every human being. I wonder if there's a term that describes the belief that death at the earliest opportunity is good but only for the individual who thinks that way. Either way, I can kinda sympathise with pro mortalists yet I can't fully agree with them as killing all human beings wouldn't do anything in the long run. Animals that have the potential to evolve into human beings would still exist. Besides, I don't care about people that much so I'd say that, if they want to live their lives, they should but people like us who don't want to live should be allowed a peaceful way out

That's not to say though that they would push someone into doing it. I don't think anyone does that here.

That's true. I only think that pro mortalists are only so in theory instead of practice. That said, I do think that some of them would eradicate humanity if they had the power to kill every human being simultaneously and instantly. Then again, we all know that the majority of people with power like that would do disgusting things but maybe that's just me being cynical

 

[Forever Sleep]

I see. So it's basically believing in what I believe for myself yet generalising that to every human being. I wonder if there's a term that describes the belief that death at the earliest opportunity is good but only for the individual who thinks that way. Either way, I can kinda sympathise with pro mortalists yet I can't fully agree with them as killing all human beings wouldn't do anything in the long run. Animals that have the potential to evolve into human beings would still exist. Besides, I don't care about people that much so I'd say that, if they want to live their lives, they should but people like us who don't want to live should be allowed a peaceful way out

That's true. I only think that pro mortalists are only so in theory instead of practice. That said, I do think that some of them would eradicate humanity if they had the power to kill every human being simultaneously and instantly. Then again, we all know that the majority of people with power like that would do disgusting things but maybe that's just me being cynical

I think labelling people is always kind of tricky really. I guess it can be useful to try and work out what we or they believe but, I'm not sure many people fall entirely into one description. I'd say the majority of people here are in fact pro-choice. It's just some have a leaning towards promortalism and others are more pro-life. I don't think it's usually quite so strong that: This is the 'right' way to look at the world and you have to comply. Still- you can sense irritation from those that hold strong views when others don't comply!

But yes- there are maybe only one or two that would happily annihilate every living creature on this planet. Possibly in the entire universe...

As for death at the earliest opportunity- so long as the individual wants that... That is one of the most contentious issues amongst even firmly pro-choice people... At what age are we capable of making that decision? It becomes even more complicated when it's assisted suicide. Plus- how do you define assisting a suicide? Does this site assist in suicides? Yes. It provides detailed method information- along with other sources on the internet. You can learn to tie a noose on YouTube! That is often the biggest issue with regards to suicide- minors.

 

[Captive_Mind515]

I see. So it's basically believing in what I believe for myself yet generalising that to every human being. I wonder if there's a term that describes the belief that death at the earliest opportunity is good but only for the individual who thinks that way. Either way, I can kinda sympathise with pro mortalists yet I can't fully agree with them as killing all human beings wouldn't do anything in the long run. Animals that have the potential to evolve into human beings would still exist. Besides, I don't care about people that much so I'd say that, if they want to live their lives, they should but people like us who don't want to live should be allowed a peaceful way out

That's true. I only think that pro mortalists are only so in theory instead of practice. That said, I do think that some of them would eradicate humanity if they had the power to kill every human being simultaneously and instantly. Then again, we all know that the majority of people with power like that would do disgusting things but maybe that's just me being cynical

Some pro-mortalists / efilists actually see it as our responsibility to help other animals out of suffering and out of this life too.

I watched this guy's videos and he expressed these sort of sentiments. https://www.youtube.com/@efilblaise4883/videos

He was a vegan and it seemed to me, like his anger around suffering of animals was a big part of his motivation for his beliefs and decision to ctb. Interesting guy, but extreme in his views. Quite uncompromising in his stance, but I did find myself agreeing with quite a lot of his logic/reasoning.

 

[SpiritualDeath]

And why would people care about how their happiness affects the universe? Most people just want to be happy themselves.

Well this is just to say that the absence of your existence is totally fine - it harms no one and nothing. Billions of years before you're born, nothing is in desperate yearning for your existence, neither you nor the universe. This is also to say that we have no ethical obligation to bring more happy lives into existence, just like we have no ethical obligation to make my table conscious so that it can enjoy pleasure - nothing is deprived of pleasure if you don't create the need for pleasure.

Yes some people have needs and desires and love fulfilling them. Like building a family, getting married having kids. I dont see how thats a negative thing? Just because there is no general utility to their actions does not mean that they are not benefitting from them.

We only see it as a "benefit" because obviously it's better to have your desired fulfilled than to stay in the constant state of deprivation and suffering (which would be the case every time you fail to fulfill that desire). In fact it's not a benefit at all because there's nothing more to be gained. You just have a need/desire, and you try to fill the hole that it creates (you make a mess by merely existing and you try to clean up that mess) The problem with desires is that it's guaranteed to be never ending, and there's no solution that can fulfill a desire once and for all if you continue existence. For example, you have to eat again and again to avoid being hungry. Even if you're lucky enough to have all of your desired fulfilled, you get bored because there's simply nothing more to do and you start to lack stimulation, and boredom is just another form of deprivation. In the meantime, the fulfillment of those desires is NEVER guaranteed. Happiness is a HUGE privilege instead of a guarantee. Therefore even the happiest people at the moment cannot guarantee that they'll stay happy for the rest of their life. One down on their luck and their life can easily become hell in the future.

Having kids is literally filling holes at the expense of others. There's no guarantee that life wouldn't be hell for your kids no matter how well you think you're prepared. You have no control over it if it gets bad. You create the possibility of hell, then it shouldn't be a surprise if it turns out to be hell. I honestly don't get why people are so unwilling to consider adoption if they want kids, like what's with this obsession to only create new beings.

Well, while we are alive we can see, feel and think and realize the story of santa claus flying into everybody's chimney is impossible. We cant make the same claim about life after death simply because it isnt possible to make such a claim.

Well the burden of proof rather falls on the ones who want to put God or souls on the table, and until that is done I can just regard it as another fairytale that humans has never stopped creating this whole time. It's just like someone saying that aliens are among us, but it's impossible for us to recognize because our senses are limited. Therefore it's impossible to make the claim that they don't exist (it's also impossible to design experiments to try to find out). I may not be able to falsify it, but it's on them to proof what they're saying is true before they can use it as a valid argument against another theory. It's simply impossible for humans to know everything in every time frame in the universe, but it doesn't mean that the only thing we can do is to give in to the epistemological nihilism instead of realizing that it's absolutely more possible for one theory to be true than another based on the massive amount of evidence that we already have.

Here's another thing that perplexes me: why do religious people keep giving birth to kids when they think that it's possible for the kids to suffer in literal hell for eternity after death, and then call it "love". It just makes no sense to me.

I just dont understand how you can create your own value to life and then apply that value to everyone and then decide whether living is worth it or not. Isn't it up to individuals to decide?

If you agree that ethical realism can be true, it means that you agree that it's possible for a value system that applies to everybody to exist. My theory is based on the fact that it's in everyone's interest to avoid harm - no matter how you define harm, and there's simply no reason to invite harm or stay in harm's way. The only thing that guarantees the absence of harm is non-existence. Therefore it would be sensible to say that for every sentient being, the best state that they can be in is the state of non-existence.

Plus, if we follow through in action with pro-mortalism- would it be right (if we could) to press that red button to eliminate all life on earth? Even very strong promortalists here perhaps wouldn't want that responsibility at the end of the day.

Well from a negative consequentialist point of view, I would argue that pressing the button isn't a harm at all, given that everyone gets eliminated without even realizing it (just like if you die in your sleep - no harm is experienced), and if you have that button, it would be more ethical for you to press it, regardless of whether you want to do it or not.

Some people worry about the violation of consent, but if you have the button and don't press it, you end up violating much more consent through the cycle of birth and death. Birth - sentience is torn out of non-existence and experiencing suffering without its consent. Dying - mostly brutal for sentient beings on this planet also without their consent. It's just like the trolley problem. People don't want to pull the lever because they don't want to be the one to kill that one person, but if you don't pull it, 5 people gets killed and it's no difference from you just killing 5 people.

It's still unknown what consciousness really is. It's still unknown whether there is a reason behind any of it. It's still unknown what happens after death. But, regardless of that- I know most promortalists are staunch atheists too and (also) won't consider the possibility of a God, afterlife etc. Is it even possible to insist that a theory is true?

Ah the epistemological nihilism. Please see my last reply to the other person.

Even those that do. Sure- they can go through horrific, traumatic maulings and yet, survive. Do you suppose they climb a tree and contemplate on how unfair life is? They don't seem to. Most are still too busy trying to survive

They suffer much more than humans do even though they aren't intelligent enough to contemplate on their suffering. There's no reason to think otherwise since we all suffer because of pain receptors. Humans are not so different from animals except having enough intelligence to understand all of this, and we don't have to run for our lives for three days, just to end up being torn and eaten alive, or getting devoured from inside out by parasites.

Hmm, given we are part of the universe — the universe observing & acting upon itself — I think one can make that argument

Not really, since there's no reason to think that the universe has any consciousness and would miss us if we don't exist. The solar system is obviously not lamenting the non-existence of the martians. The universe just operates under blind physical force, with no purpose or rationality.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

Every human or other sentient animal is better off not existing than living. While alive a sentient animal can suffer unbearable constant long lasting pain
. But while not existing no one can suffer nor feel extreme pain.

However when I say this logical fact other humans might think I'm trying to tell them to suicide or encouraging suicide or who knows what. No I don't care what another human does . To me They can do whatever they want to live or suicide or whatever it doesn't affect me in anyway .

The problem is they have many people believing it's ok to take away my individual right to escape escape extreme torture. And they have they made assisting suicide and nembutal crimes.

 

[offbalance]

I was replying in a thread by FuneralCry but, I took so long to do it that by the time I tried to post it, the thread was locked.

I just wanted to say this about the pro-mortalist viewpoint and why it's pretty much useless to try and argue with it: (I've found.)



I'm obviously not the member you're debating with but, I just wanted to say this regarding all members that are pro-mortalist...

I used to do this too- try and argue the finer points... Why assisted suicide in particular likely won't ever be available to all, no questions asked. Unless things change dramatically in the world I suppose.

Why- even from a practicality point of view, parents would have something to say if they're 12 year old went off to school one day, did a bunk and got themselves euthanized. Just practically- it's obvious it wouldn't work.

However, regarding the safeguarding side of things, I think you have to bear in mind: Pro-mortalists see zero value in life. Many in fact see direct harm in living. It's all suffering according to them.

So- as the description suggests- pro-death- they see death as the best result for anyone and everyone. No matter who, how old, what circumstances. I imagine in their eyes- the younger the better- save themselves some time here suffering. So, with that mindset- there aren't going to be exceptions.

Doesn't matter what other people think of their lives. They apparently know the truth and that is- death is anyone's best option. They'll in fact go further to say to not see life that way- that person is delusional. So- I guess I'm trying to say- you can't effectively argue with that midset. It's every bit as rigid as the pro-life mindset. If there is one right answer = death, it won't matter to them how the person got to it.

It's debatable whether they have a point of course. Ultimately, do you think you can regret killing yourself? Is that even possible do you suppose? That's what we're talking about, surely? Killing yourself when you weren't in your right mind or, you were (debatably) too young to fully comprehend the decision means you nullify any future for yourself. Whether that could have been full of joy or misery. But- what are the ramifications for that on that person do you suppose? They're dead...

Depends on whether you believe you can experience thoughts and emotions after death to be able to regret things I suppose. Or- if you perhaps think there are larger, cosmic implications when someone leaves early. Really though- pro-lifers may not want to admit it but they're worried about themselves- surely? If they thought it through, they'd surely realise that that person isn't now able to lament their missed potential in life. Anyhow- that's playing devil's advocate to say, the pro-mortalists maybe have a point. (In my view.) To clarify my own position though- I agree with you. I think assisted suicide does need safe guards.

But, when someone is 100% convinced that something is bad. 100% convinced that the only thing that thing will bring is pain and suffering- they're unlikely to want to allow anyone to choose that thing- for their own good. For the pro-life people- that thing is suicide. For pro-mortalists- it's life. They're polar opposites but weirdly similar in that they rely entirely on that person's own opinion that they then project on to everyone else and think that's reasonable. Ultimately- they're not interested in the counter opinion because they think it's delusional. That goes for both sides.

To be fair to even our most pro-mortalist members though- ultimately I'd still say most are pro-choice. They may think a person's (anyone's) best option is death but ultimately, they'll likely still respect that person's own right to choose for themselves.

Logic and truth have always been important to me, and I find the promortalist view the most logically coherent. That's a big factor in why I want to CTB. It feels like I can't not value logic… it's hard to ignore

 

[SexyIncél]

Not really, since there's no reason to think that the universe has any consciousness and would miss us if we don't exist. The solar system is obviously not lamenting the non-existence of the martians. The universe just operates under blind physical force, with no purpose or rationality.

Many won't be convinced by that strong atheistic argument. It assumes too much. Especially with the backlash against modern disenchantment. Not to mention the revival of panpsychism, carrying on the tradition of Peirce, Whitehead, etc

And anyway, parts of the universe (in human form) ARE obsessed with terraforming Mars. "Be the Martian you wish to see in the universe"

Which is why I offered 2 alternate arguments which bolster the promortalist position — with fewer ontological commitments:

• if the universe has something like intention, it's cruel. (aka "If there's a god, he's a devil")
• we destroy our environment, ourselves — and conceivably one day even the universe for various goofy reasons

But whatevs. I spoke with a promortalist about this, and before I could finish my point, she called it philosophical nitpicking. Until I explained I was BOLSTERING promortalist's arguments. So what-the-fuck-ever, why even engage promortalists if they're gonna act to me like how normies act to them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Forever Sleep]

Well the burden of proof rather falls on the ones who want to put God or souls on the table, and until that is done I can just regard it as another fairytale that humans has never stopped creating this whole time.

You could very well be right. I also think religion sounds suspiciously man made. Although to be honest, I've never really understood why people always lay this burden of proof on religious people.

Thankfully, I don't actually think they probably do. I fully suspect that both religious people and atheists with a science background are always busily trying to prove it either way. I wish they would!

I think it's more that people who are certain in their deisbeliefs don't even want to entertain the ideas. I guess I still find it strange though because- death is something we're all going to go through. So- if there is something to it, it's going to affect us all.

To picture it as another scenario- imagine this: A large lake in Florida that you've been told you're going to be thrown in to. It's rumoured that a huge crocodile lives in this lake. Other people say it's just a story they made up to stop their kids swimming there. Wouldn't you be nervous about being chucked in? Wouldn't you be keen to find out whether there was a crocodile or, would you simply insist that the people who made up the rumour need to provide proof? And, not give it another thought?

I guess the truth is, I've always been envious of people who are so certain in their conviction that there isn't a God. It must be nice not to worry about it at all! I hope you're right!

We only see it as a "benefit" because obviously it's better to have your desired fulfilled than to stay in the constant state of deprivation and suffering (which would be the case every time you fail to fulfill that desire). In fact it's not a benefit at all because there's nothing more to be gained. You just have a need/desire, and you try to fill the hole that it creates (you make a mess by merely existing and you try to clean up that mess) The problem with desires is that it's guaranteed to be never ending, and there's no solution that can fulfill a desire once and for all if you continue existence. For example, you have to eat again and again to avoid being hungry. Even if you're lucky enough to have all of your desired fulfilled, you get bored because there's simply nothing more to do and you start to lack stimulation, and boredom is just another form of deprivation. In the meantime, the fulfillment of those desires is NEVER guaranteed. Happiness is a HUGE privilege instead of a guarantee. Therefore even the happiest people at the moment cannot guarantee that they'll stay happy for the rest of their life. One down on their luck and their life can easily become hell in the future.

I'd argue that this is a very specific way of experiencing life. It's extremely common here of course- many of us are sick of being on this treadmill to sate our needs constantly.

People are here presumably because they can't sate their needs. Either their needs are very hard to fill- they can't get out of pain, they can't shake a mental illness, they can't make enough money to live from. They are tired of putting in so much effort for so little reward. Or, they don't even seem to have many needs to begin with because of something like anhedonia.

How do you know this is the way every human experiences their life though? Can you see into the minds of every person on this planet?

If you ever watch videos that criticise especially modern, Western life and culture, you'll start to wonder if this kind of constant dissatisfaction, constant mental chatter is because of the specific culture we have grown up in.

I'd argue that we are in fact encouraged to be dissatisfied with our lives. Our lot in life. It's how advertisers get us to buy shit we don't need... Buy this and your life will be better. You NEED this to relax and it only costs this much. You NEED this car to impress all your friends. You NEED to look like this model in order to get a date- go on a diet, go to the gym, buy nice clothes. Not everyone falls for that shit.

You can't just assume that all 8 billion people on this planet utterly resent the fact that every few hours they get hungry, thirsty, horny, tired, bored- whatever. You can't assume that everyone hates eating, drinking, shagging, sleeping, entertainment. Some people manage to sate a lot of their needs. Some don't but at least appear to be content with their lot. Imagine if we didn't have needs/desires. We'd be robots! Of course- needs bring bad things too but- it isn't all bad for everyone all the time.

I'll try and prove it though... If everyone hated life as much as you think they do- then- assisted suicide would be freely available everywhere for everyone- wouldn't it? Or, are we falling back on the argument that all those people are delussional?

I do enjoy your arguments by the way. I do actually think they are strong. I do share some promortalist views myself although the stumbling block for me is my love of our ability to choose our own individual fates. (To an extent.)

I loved your perplexed statement about- why do religious people have children if there's a possibility they will go to hell? That's true! Maybe they think God will give them bonus points though if they indoctrinate them... New members for the fan club!

 

[SpiritualDeath]

Although to be honest, I've never really understood why people always lay this burden of proof on religious people.

This is because it's only possible to directly prove that something exists. How can you directly prove the non-existence of a non-existent entity, when it...doesn't exist? It's nowhere to be found; no one has ever seen or experienced it in any way; there's no relevant property or variable that can even be tested. The only thing we can do is to observe what actually exists, collect evidence and if current evidence is in direct contradiction to a theory then we say that theory is false, or at least is very unlikely to be true, while the other side can make up as many story as they want based on zero evidence.

Consider the following example:
1. You ask me to prove that God doesn't exist. I say I have a "magic machine" that can scan the entire universe at the same time. I carried out an experiment using that machine and it says there's no presence of God during the creation of the current universe. Now it's on you to prove that my magic machine doesn't exist.
2. I still haven't directly proved the non-existence of God (as I said it's impossible to do so). But if my magic machine is true, then at least creationism can be completely falsified. Meanwhile, it's impossible for you to directly prove that my magic machine doesn't exist.
3. You try to use currently existing evidence and logic to prove that such a magic machine cannot exist. For example, nothing can scan the entire space of the universe at the same time, because nothing moves faster than the speed of light. However, I can conveniently make up as many fairytales as I see fit: my magic machine is different. It not only can move faster than the speed of light, but also can have a speed approaching infinity when I want it to.
4. My magic machine is very convenient. Whenever I come across a theory I don't like, I can say that "I have a magic machine, and it proves that your theory is wrong", and demand that because you can never prove that my magic machine doesn't exist, you have to accept the possibility that your theory is indeed wrong because my magic machine proves so.

Almost everyone would say that this is absurd, and that I need to firstly provide examinable proof that my magic machine exists, and if this cannot be done, then my magic machine shouldn't be of any relevance to currently existing theories. Well, this is exactly why I say that religious people should stop threatening people with hell unless they firstly provide examinable evidence that hell exists. Evolution is a fully consistent theory with tonnes of evidence backing up. I don't even see a reason for the concept of God to exist. It's redundant in many senses.

Also, if something cannot be examined, such as what happens after death, then anything would be equally possible. "you'll go to hell if you ctb" is not in any way more possible than "Life is actually a scam and compliance test. You'll be further enslaved by an evil god after death if you love life so much and are so willing to endure suffering. The only way to avoid this is to ctb." Yet many people are unnecessarily concerned about the former, but don't think the latter is possible, which just doesn't make much sense.

To picture it as another scenario- imagine this: A large lake in Florida that you've been told you're going to be thrown in to. It's rumoured that a huge crocodile lives in this lake. Other people say it's just a story they made up to stop their kids swimming there. Wouldn't you be nervous about being chucked in? Wouldn't you be keen to find out whether there was a crocodile or, would you simply insist that the people who made up the rumour need to provide proof? And, not give it another thought?

This is not a very good analogy. You would be concerned that it's possible that there are crocodiles in that lake, because it is at least plausible.
1. You have seen a crocodile. You know that crocodiles do exist.
2. You know that a crocodile can live in a large lake in Florida. That's their natural habitat.
3. You know that crocodiles would attack you. Things like this have truly happened in the past.

I would say that "the rumor that God exists" is more similar to "the rumor that there's a crocodile driving a car in the lake", when you know that crocodiles can't drive cars, and cars don't function under water.

You can't just assume that all 8 billion people on this planet utterly resent the fact that every few hours they get hungry, thirsty, horny, tired, bored- whatever. You can't assume that everyone hates eating, drinking, shagging, sleeping, entertainment. Some people manage to sate a lot of their needs. Some don't but at least appear to be content with their lot. Imagine if we didn't have needs/desires. We'd be robots! Of course- needs bring bad things too but- it isn't all bad for everyone all the time.

Ethical realism would imply that it's actually irrelevant what people subjectively think. Of course not everyone hates their needs or life, but this would be irrelevant, and does not disprove that their needs are in fact a disutility. Just like when I said it's more ethical to press the red button, it would imply that it's more ethical no matter who that person is, and no matter if they want to press that button.

But whatevs. I spoke with a promortalist about this, and before I could finish my point, she called it philosophical nitpicking. Until I explained I was BOLSTERING promortalist's arguments. So what-the-fuck-ever, why even engage promortalists if they're gonna act to me like how normies act to them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

She's not a good philosopher then. A large part of philosophical discussions IS to get nitpicked, obsess over language, logic and definitions etc., for the sake of philosophical rigor of the arguments.

 

[Forever Sleep]

This is because it's only possible to directly prove that something exists. How can you directly prove the non-existence of a non-existent entity, when it...doesn't exist? It's nowhere to be found; no one has ever seen or experienced it in any way; there's no relevant property or variable that can even be tested. The only thing we can do is to observe what actually exists, collect evidence and if current evidence is in direct contradiction to a theory then we say that theory is false, or at least is very unlikely to be true, while the other side can make up as many story as they want based on zero evidence.

Consider the following example:
1. You ask me to prove that God doesn't exist. I say I have a "magic machine" that can scan the entire universe at the same time. I carried out an experiment using that machine and it says there's no presence of God during the creation of the current universe. Now it's on you to prove that my magic machine doesn't exist.
2. I still haven't directly proved the non-existence of God (as I said it's impossible to do so). But if my magic machine is true, then at least creationism can be completely falsified. Meanwhile, it's impossible for you to directly prove that my magic machine doesn't exist.
3. You try to use currently existing evidence and logic to prove that such a magic machine cannot exist. For example, nothing can scan the entire space of the universe at the same time, because nothing moves faster than the speed of light. However, I can conveniently make up as many fairytales as I see fit: my magic machine is different. It not only can move faster than the speed of light, but also can have a speed approaching infinity when I want it to.
4. My magic machine is very convenient. Whenever I come across a theory I don't like, I can say that "I have a magic machine, and it proves that your theory is wrong", and demand that because you can never prove that my magic machine doesn't exist, you have to accept the possibility that your theory is indeed wrong because my magic machine proves so.

Almost everyone would say that this is absurd, and that I need to firstly provide examinable proof that my magic machine exists, and if this cannot be done, then my magic machine shouldn't be of any relevance to currently existing theories. Well, this is exactly why I say that religious people should stop threatening people with hell unless they firstly provide examinable evidence that hell exists. Evolution is a fully consistent theory with tonnes of evidence backing up. I don't even see a reason for the concept of God to exist. It's redundant in many senses.

Also, if something cannot be examined, such as what happens after death, then anything would be equally possible. "you'll go to hell if you ctb" is not in any way more possible than "Life is actually a scam and compliance test. You'll be further enslaved by an evil god after death if you love life so much and are so willing to endure suffering. The only way to avoid this is to ctb." Yet many people are unnecessarily concerned about the former, but don't think the latter is possible, which just doesn't make much sense.

This is not a very good analogy. You would be concerned that it's possible that there are crocodiles in that lake, because it is at least plausible.
1. You have seen a crocodile. You know that crocodiles do exist.
2. You know that a crocodile can live in a large lake in Florida. That's their natural habitat.
3. You know that crocodiles would attack you. Things like this have truly happened in the past.

I would say that "the rumor that God exists" is more similar to "the rumor that there's a crocodile driving a car in the lake", when you know that crocodiles can't drive cars, and cars don't function under water.

Ethical realism would imply that it's actually irrelevant what people subjectively think. Of course not everyone hates their needs or life, but this would be irrelevant, and does not disprove that their needs are in fact a disutility. Just like when I said it's more ethical to press the red button, it would imply that it's more ethical no matter who that person is, and no matter if they want to press that button.

She's not a good philosopher then. A large part of philosophical discussions IS to get nitpicked, obsess over language, logic and definitions etc., for the sake of philosophical rigor of the arguments.

Very strong arguments and I take your point. I guess it might be more problematic if there were plenty of texts describing this 'magic machine' spanning back decades and decades. But I agree- yes- it's still difficult to prove either way and unreasonable to insist everyone should believe it or, suffer the consequences.

Not to say I believe word for word, the religious texts. However, I am prepared to believe some of the so called prophets were real people. As to whether they were God's children or, God itself- more debatable really. Why would they say they were? Did they say they were even? You have to wonder- if they were real, just how much of what they said became reinterpreted over the years. That's not to say I accept 100% that someone like Jesus did live here- although, I think that's more likely than not in a way. It's definitely not to say I'm convinced they were the son of God (so, that's hell for me...) In any case though, it's humankinds manipulation of religion that I have the biggest problem with.

Fair point though- we could be looking forever for something that isn't there. And, if we can't look everywhere- we simply can't know. I suppose maybe my argument is- for all the (many) things we don't know about life, is it possible that there is more of a spritual reason rather than maths and science behind it all? I myself am uncertain.

Yes, fair enough- the crocodile was a bad analogy because it had known parameters so therefore, more of a strong possibility of being true. I suppose that is the difficulty really. If God lives in another dimension say- that we can't access till we die presumably- then- we'll never find heaven, hell or God. I do understand that it is terribly convenient for religious people to be able to hide behind the whole- there are human limits to prevent us finding out- that's why it's called faith. So yes- fair point- maybe the only way we'll know God exists is if they reveal themselves.

Another question though- given the vastness of the universe, do you think there is intelligent life on other planets? Hypothetically speaking- if you had that red button to wipe out all life on a planet, would you use it immediately on them or, observe what their lives were like first? Can you imagine a way of living even where nothing suffered? I wonder if there would even be death- if nothing was allowed to suffer. But- ethically speaking, what would feel like the best course of action? You decide they should be freed of their suffering? Or- you give the red button to one of them to decide? What if they choose not to press it though? You snatch it back and do it for them? You keep looking for someone who would be willing to kill everything?

Hmm, ethical realism sounds like genocide. Maybe you have a point though. If everything died at once, there's nothing left to feel sad or horrified about it. Once again though, honestly- the God level type of thinking frightens me personally but, there we go. I'm just glad I don't have God like responsibilities to make those decisions. I'm probably in part glad that no one else does too! Even though, it would be ideal for me of course, I still can't drop the feeling that it would be murder for most other creatures. 'Ethical' murder or not, I couldn't do it I don't think.

 

[jbear824]

Y'all are making this way more convoluted that it a really is. When it boils down to one thing and one thing only.

It's down to the individual. Because no one, none you here, have any right to decide for someone else. Or have any right to decide what someone else can do with their life or body.

Either everyone has the right or no one does. You can't selectively decide who can live and who can die. You are not gods. But some of you here definitely think of yourselves on that level.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's just like the trolley problem. People don't want to pull the lever because they don't want to be the one to kill that one person, but if you don't pull it, 5 people gets killed and it's no difference from you just killing 5 people.

I think you'd appreciate this...