Discussion The pro-mortalist point of view.

[SexyIncél]

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.

Hehe, a disclaimer in case she reads this: She's in many ways smarter than me. (So I internalized her way of thinking, to approximate her)

She was just tired, and gets understandably touchy when people get all normie with things that matter to her. And she's a rationalist, with little patience for the ~woo~

Her response me gwumpy too, because I felt misunderstood. And not charitably interpreted

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.

I asked a 9 year old: "She first asked me if I'd push the Red Button. I said no, but promortalism helped me understand some important things about the world. Then she said "Well, I'd try to speak with newborns, to ask if they want to experience life." Thinking a bit more, she'd ask people to vote on it"

Personally though, we make decisions for each other all the time. When dealing with a guy who attacks underaged girls, did I let him do as he pleased? No, because he didn't let others do as they pleased

We're in a hell dimension. Too few are willing to do what it takes to fix it. Most are content to watch others suffer. While I personally prefer fixing it, I also understand the rationality of stopping the horror show. Instantly, painlessly, no one needs to know. The actors can do something else, if they still exist on some metalevel

 

[SilentSadness]

For me at least it was never about death, the problem is suffering and the amount we're forced to experience. The only way to alleviate suffering permanently is to die. It's not placing value on death like pro lifers place on life, it's placing value on preventing unwanted suffering. If someone doesn't agree that suffering is a bad thing then there is no discussion to be had.

 

[SpiritualDeath]

I guess it might be more problematic if there were plenty of texts describing this 'magic machine' spanning back decades and decades.

Any story can be elaborated if enough people want to make it up and believe in it. That's what religions are doing this whole time - Countless people gathering around elaborating a few stories for centuries. Even today the majority of the human race is still religious. However, any good fictionist can do the same. It can be done in the exact same fashion for my magic machine if, like, centuries ago (when people still believed that the earth is flat and real science wasn't even a thing) a prophet said that my magic machine created the universe. All that's needed is enough believers.

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.

I assume what you're referring to is negative utilitarianism. Ethical realism is just a meta-ethical position, saying that ethics and value judgements can be objective (independent of what people subjectively think or feel), just like empirical arguments (such as the earth is not flat). It says nothing more than that. Negative utilitarianism argues that the only good/ethical thing is the reduction/elimination of disutility/suffering. Therefore strong negative utilitarianism would endorse the benevolent world exploder, who has the ability to end the universe instantly.

I would argue that the "genocide" people are talking about today is actually pro-life. The whole idea of genocide is that one group of people is "better" and more worth living than the other group, while the only thing a negative utilitarian would care about is suffering (which is inevitable in life for everybody).

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?

This has actually been discussed in philosophy. Assuming that we would have the ability to destroy our own planet in the future, and assuming that all intelligent life in the universe would end up destroying their own planets, some intelligent life may fail, and there would still be disutility in the universe. The question is should we aim at discovering and helping them, because if we don't, there seems to be an arbitrary line drawn with no good reason. The negative utilitarians who argue that we shouldn't would need to explain where and why a line should be drawn, instead of taking the logic of this ethical position all the way down.

I'd say that life is not a very likely phenomenon in our universe. Even if there really is life on other planets, it would be nearly impossible for humans to discover and get in contact with all of them (we haven't discovered a single sign of alien intelligent life so far). Maybe the only thing we can do is to do our best to clean up our own mess. However, to the God level benevolent world exploder, there would be no reason for them to only eliminate the disutility on planet earth instead of take care of everything in this universe.

If there's no suffering, then there simply isn't any problem left to be solved, and from a negative utilitarian point of view it wouldn't matter if they want to continue living or not.

Personally though, we make decisions for each other all the time. When dealing with a guy who attacks underaged girls, did I let him do as he pleased? No, because he didn't let others do as they pleased

EXACTLY. We make decisions that inevitably influence others, no matter directly or indirectly, all the time. I'd argue that truly "pro-choice" people should be anti-procreation, since you know that the baby have no say at all in being torn out of non-existence and experiencing any suffering in existence. Or else it's just plain hypocrisy.

But you're still not being actually "pro-choice" in being anti-procreation, since the natalists would want to make a "choice" of bringing in new life and you're not respecting that. See how this is just another trolley problem? That's why I would only approach ethics through consequentialism. Deontology and the "pro-choice doctrine" just don't make much sense.

 

[Proteus]

It's much simpler than that. Many pro-mortalists admit how hard it's to die yet they expect others to go thought it? No thanks. The mental aspect of suicide is the worst thing one can feel. This is why so few people actually pull through. Living is unironically easier. To be clear, I'm not friend of life, and it's pretty much a fact the bad things affecting the brain are more. I'm not against dying, the problem is most people can't do it, at least without suffering even more, so they will be anxious for nothing.

It's not about how good life is, but how worse death gets. I've always said helping others is better for both.

And BTW, true consent doesn't exist because literally everything has an impact on other people. Consent arguments need to die now. People can be wrong with their desires, so consent alone is not a good base for anything.