Would you undo the world?

[Ichneumon]

If you would awake tomorrow with the chronomanctic powers to undo everything, EVERYTHING, the entire univerise and make sure it never got into existence. Would you do it? You could prevent all the suffering in the world by doing so and it is not in any way more of a murder than birth control, right?:smallamused:

This might be the last words I type, before I undo the world,

The Chronomancer

[Croverus]

Nice philisophical idea, but I have too many people I care about very deeply to consider ruing all the fun they could have.

And ending lives that currently exist is not the same as birth control... at all.

:smallcool:

[Ditto]

6.75 billion already living humans =/= Sperm...

Also, if you do that then who's left for you to say, "Dude, did you just SEE that? I nullified all of existence! It was awesome! ...dude? You there? ...oh, I guess not."

[Eldan]

Sure not. With that kind of power, I could probably a lot of stuff. Hmm. Do I konw how these powers work? Or at least, how the stuff I'm taking down works? Because if yes, I'd have to start a career in physics.

[OverdrivePrime]

Hm. No, all of my friends and stuff are on this planet. Why remake everything when I could just improve on what's already here?

[SurlySeraph]

No. I want to improve the world, and I can't do that if it's not around. Every problem the world faces can be solved, so I'll just keep plugging away at them to the best of my ability rather than despairing like that.

[Aotrs Commander]

Hell, yes! Without even a second thought.

And I'd make the universe suffer as it died as well! Serve it right.

[RS14]

Yes.

The discussion of birth control is irrelevant. If the world can be destroyed without suffering, it should be done. Even if it were simply a matter of killing us all where we stand now, that's not so bad. We'll all die anyway; we might as well all die now, with whatever suffering that entails, together, destroying any chance of perpetuating life, and therefore further suffering as would result from living.

[Ichneumon]

I actually think I would. Non existent people or even would-be-future people can't claim a right to exist, as I see it, so it is not a problem to prevent them from existing. You are preventing so much suffering, I would do it.

[Delwugor]

If you would awake tomorrow with the chronomanctic powers to undo everything, EVERYTHING, the entire univerise and make sure it never got into existence. Would you do it? You could prevent all the suffering in the world by doing so and it is not in any way more of a murder than birth control, right?:smallamused:

This might be the last words I type, before I undo the world,

The Chronomancer

Absolutely not.

Through suffering compassion is sometimes learned. People come together, form bonds and support each other.

Through prevention and/or destruction of suffering your remove the ability to grow strong and match suffering with goodness, kindness and compassion.

[OverdrivePrime]

I'm all for the preventing of suffering. The problem here is that you're also preventing happiness of an equal or greater measure.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Hmm. I can't see most of humanity wanting to go along with being unmade...

...now, see, if I could SELECTIVELY unmake certain people and their effect on the world...

...I probably still wouldn't. Better the devil you know, right? I'm pretty sure if someone was evil enough for me to want to unmake them AND reknowned enough for me to have heard of them, they would have affected far too many lives for the results of their unmaking to be at all predictable.

[Syka]

Not in a million years.

Suffering is as much a part of life as happiness and joy and excitement and sadness and anger. How can you really know what happiness and joy is unless you have had a negative experience with which to realize that you are in a better place? The times I have suffered have made me appreciate what I have now and what I get in the future, particularly if it's something related to the suffering. It has also made me a more compassionate and caring human.

I want to live. I don't want to exist and be coddled and never know pain. Because without knowing pain, I would not know the happiness that I do.l And it is not my decision to make for others.

[Spiryt]

I actually think I would. Non existent people or even would-be-future people can't claim a right to exist, as I see it, so it is not a problem to prevent them from existing. You are preventing so much suffering, I would do it.

Bleh.

The guy whose skull i flatten in dark alley also can't claim a right to exist.

It's still murder.

If I should do it, I would at least ask few people if they want cease to exist.

[Cobra_Ikari]

If I should do it, I would at least ask few people if they want cease to exist.

I'd expect mostly answers of "No, I want to exist." Since, you know, there's a word for people with the alternative. It's called "suicidal". >.>

[Spiryt]

I'd expect mostly answers of "No, I want to exist." Since, you know, there's a word for people with the alternative. It's called "suicidal". >.>

Exactly.

Anyway, If I really believed that I have such power, I would be nut (regardless if I reallly had it), so my decisions anyway won't be too rational. :smallamused:

[Mx.Silver]

If you would awake tomorrow with the chronomanctic powers to undo everything, EVERYTHING, the entire univerise and make sure it never got into existence. Would you do it?
I'm trying to find a logical motivation for permentantly destroying all matter (and, by extension, all life) in existence and to be honest I'm drawing a blank. This may be due to the fact I'm not a complete psychopath I don't know.


You could prevent all the suffering in the world by doing so and it is not in any way more of a murder than birth control, right?:smallamused:
You have a really weird concept of birth control. You're ending the life of things that currently exist, i.e. killing them. You can't really make a claim to euthanasia either, since there are living things that aren't undergoing horrific suffering. So yeah, what you're proposing is murder. Well, murder-suicide but you get the point

[V'icternus]

Would I do it, considering all the implications of it and considerin all the variables? No.

Would I do it, just to see if I really could?

...Probably. (The lesson is: Never tell V'icternus he has an amazing power unless you want it used on you)

[chiasaur11]

No.

I don't have the right for one thing, and for another, I'd be doing a tremendous disservice to every single person ever to do anything beyond sit in their own filth. Humanity is a flawed bunch, capable of all kinds of atrocities, but also of glories, heroism, art, science, self sacrifice. I'd be saying my own petty opinion on suffering outranked that of every person who ever got out of bed in the morning and somehow avoided suicide and murder, conducting themselves with the tiniest bit of dignity.

And that's even ignoring a personal distaste for suicide, which this would qualify as in most books.

Besides, I really need to play Half Life 2 Episode 3. If I destroyed the universe, how would Valve ever finish the dang thing?

[Jacklu]

The real question here is; would you be able to undue the paradox you would create by destroying the universe, therefore undoing your own existence before you had a chance to be, therefore preventing yourself from ever gaining the ability to destroy the universe, therefore stopping yourself from ever destroying the universe, thus allowing the universe to exist, bringing about your own creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation, bringing about your creation, ending your creation....

...

x_x

[T-O-E]

This is ridiculous.
I would never, ever do that. Even in my most depressed/enraged state.

[Ichneumon]

Now, I might not have been clear enough, I meant traveling back in time and preventing the world or "life" from ever existing, not ending the world now.

[Zanaril]

No.

At least not until all the webcomics I read have finished.

And I've read every single book I want to read.

Or seen everything I want to see and done everything I ever want to do.

Actually, forget about it. Like that will ever happen.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Now, I might not have been clear enough, I meant traveling back in time and preventing the world or "life" from ever existing, not ending the world now.

They are, in fact, the same thing. The starting point is not "before the time of life", the starting point is "the time at which you take the first action to go back in time with the intent to unmake the world."

It's more comparable to the ethics of an abortion than birth control. A several-billion-years post-natal abortion. In general, pro-choice or pro-life, you don't see anyone advocating abortion after birth, because that's agreed upon as murder. And you're talking about killing it when it's, like, WAAAAAAY grown up already.

[Lost Demiurge]

No.

When you are losing the chess game, you don't throw the board in the fire. You either find a way to win, or lose with grace.

And when the next game comes around, you bring the lessons you learned from the last loss, and play better for them.

[Spiryt]

Now, I might not have been clear enough, I meant traveling back in time and preventing the world or "life" from ever existing, not ending the world now.

That would be the same thing.

You are "here" you know about everything that exist, and destroy that "everything" that could exist.

Not to talk about all paradoxes it would cause, like Jacklu pointed out.


Really, you are talking about things you (or anyone else) don't understand.

[daggaz]

You gotta be kidding me.

All in the name of stopping suffering? You are also stopping all love, happiness, compassion, growth, learning, exploration and discovery, fascination, expression... Not to mention all life, all of creation itself. And who is to say suffering is pure evil. Ive learned alot from my suffering, and I am a better man for it.

That view is so one sided...terribly blind, and a disturbingly false way to justify the most wanton act of senseless destruction possible. I hope anybody who actually answered yes will sit down and meditate on this for a very, very long time. For all of us. For yourselves.

[Jacklu]

Now, I might not have been clear enough, I meant traveling back in time and preventing the world or "life" from ever existing, not ending the world now.

As I said, your real challenge would preventing the grand daddy of all paradoxes from occurring by doing this. In fact, doing this would immediately result in it undoing itself, by sheer virtue of cause and effect.

Hmmm... This raises another interesting question... How many times has it happened, only to have the person responsible give up after being unable to accomplish it...

[Coidzor]

Hmm. Possibly while drunk in order to see what would happen.

While sober, probably not unless I was suddenly backed into a corner by some kind of shadowy government or big damn heroes or vampires.

[Spiryt]

Hmmm... This raises another interesting question... How many times has it happened, only to have the person responsible give up after being unable to accomplish it...

I'm pretty sure it might be happening in some assylum right now :smalltongue:

" I undo the creation! Now!"

[Mando Knight]

They are, in fact, the same thing. The starting point is not "before the time of life", the starting point is "the time at which you take the first action to go back in time with the intent to unmake the world."

Pretty much. Once you start traveling counter to the flow of time, you have to stop looking at it as a nice, neat line. More like a quantum curve of temporal continuity, that when zoomed out enough looks precisely like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.

[Ichneumon]

So most of all don't see not being born at all as a great gift? Now, I'm not advocating suicide or murder. Destroying exististence would be bad, but what I'm talking about here wouldn't really be destruction, it would be... prevention, wouldn't it? Time is relative, when you decide NOT to have babies you know that you might prevent entire generations from coming into existence. Does the knowledge that you actually are preventing those generations really make the difference?

I find it interesting that everytime I get the time to philosophize (sp???) and reason my ethics, morality and philosophy someone calls me or my ideas psychopathic.

[Jacklu]

Pretty much. Once you start traveling counter to the flow of time, you have to stop looking at it as a nice, neat line. More like a quantum curve of temporal continuity, that when zoomed out enough looks precisely like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.

That sentence kind of got away from you at the end there.

[Inhuman Bot]

So most of all don't see not being born at all as a great gift? Now, I'm not advocating suicide or murder. Destroying exististence would be bad, but what I'm talking about here wouldn't really be destruction, it would be... prevention, wouldn't it? Time is relative, when you decide NOT to have babies you know that you might prevent entire generations from coming into existence. Does the knowledge that you actually are preventing those generations really make the difference?

I find it interesting that everytime I get the time to philosophize (sp???) and reason my ethics, morality and philosophy someone calls me or my ideas psychopathic.


Question.

Do you, personally, wish you hadn't existed?
Also, I think this is how cults are formed.

[Cobra_Ikari]

So most of all don't see not being born at all as a great gift? Now, I'm not advocating suicide or murder. Destroying exististence would be bad, but what I'm talking about here wouldn't really be destruction, it would be... prevention, wouldn't it? Time is relative, when you decide NOT to have babies you know that you might prevent entire generations from coming into existence. Does the knowledge that you actually are preventing those generations really make the difference?

I find it interesting that everytime I get the time to philosophize (sp???) and reason my ethics, morality and philosophy someone calls me or my ideas psychopathic.

No. Again, there is a difference between preventing something and unmaking it. Even if the measure used to unmake something is simply warping time and then preventing it.

When you talk about unmaking life to prevent suffering, you are recognizing the existance of life and suffering. Not recognizing the potential. The EXISTANCE.

[chiasaur11]

Another problem:

You try to pull that kind of thing, and you get Reed Richards, the TVA, The Doctor, Victor Von Doom, and every other time traveler giving you a hard time in the form of kicks to the face. I, personally, prefer to have my face remain free of Judge Dredd parody based injuries.

[Kaelaroth]

No. I would not do this (assuming, of course, that, in the future, I don't undergo a major personality change).

[Coidzor]

I think the biggest thing is that this requires one to no longer be bound by causality or the limits of space-time in order to attempt it in the first place.

At least, that was my impression of it. Going before time existed or right when it started and kicking Lavos McTimestarter's butt.

[Ichneumon]

Question.

Do you, personally, wish you hadn't existed?
Also, I think this is how cults are formed.

Yes, I guess, that would be the only consistent point of view. Wouldn't it?

Replying to the white text: Could you clarify?

[Jacklu]

So most of all don't see not being born at all as a great gift? Now, I'm not advocating suicide or murder. Destroying exististence would be bad, but what I'm talking about here wouldn't really be destruction, it would be... prevention, wouldn't it? Time is relative, when you decide NOT to have babies you know that you might prevent entire generations from coming into existence. Does the knowledge that you actually are preventing those generations really make the difference?

I find it interesting that everytime I get the time to philosophize (sp???) and reason my ethics, morality and philosophy someone calls me or my ideas psychopathic.

The moral issue with this is exactly that time is relative. Though ending the universe before it began would not be murder, the fact that any person doing it would have had to come from a point in time /after/ billions of people had been born, lived, and died, would mean that they would be consciously making the decision to end millions of lives that existed at the time that they gained such power. Unless the person in question was in existence at the moment of the universes creation and had no first hand knowledge of the people that would be born in the future, they would, by definition, be committing mass murder on a scale that, frankly, should terrify anyone who would even flippantly consider taking such action.

And the reason people are implying that such musing is psychopathic, it because, honestly, it is. If you posted a question about whether people would knowingly trigger the detonation of a nuclear weapon in the middle of a city, you wouldn't expect nobody to call into question the inherent morality of the question, nor question the implications of feeling the need to ask such a question in the first place. But you don't think ending the universe and everyone in it merits a similarly taken aback response? :smallconfused:

[Spiryt]

Destroying exististence would be bad, but what I'm talking about here wouldn't really be destruction, it would be... prevention, wouldn't it? Time is relative, when you decide NOT to have babies you know that you might prevent entire generations from coming into existence.

Whole thing is that if you can DECIDE to "prevent" all things, you must KNOW about them, and that all of this happened in the first place.

So something had to exist for you to undo it. So you never can "prevent" it, you can destroy it.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Whole thing is that if you can DECIDE to "prevent" all things, you must KNOW about them, and that all of this happened in the first place.

So something had to exist for you to undo it. So you never can "prevent" it, you can destroy it.

Exactly! This is what I've been saying. In progressively stranger ways.

[Ichneumon]

Whole thing is that if you can DECIDE to "prevent" all things, you must KNOW about them, and that all of this happened in the first place.

So something had to exist for you to undo it. So you never can "prevent" it, you can destroy it.

You can know something will happen in the future and try to prevent it. Can't you?

[V'icternus]

But, it's not the future. Not for you. If you're somehow manipulating the time stream and stopping existance, then you at, in effect, removing everything that ever is, was, would be, could be, or should be.

Also, you'd stop yourself from ever existing, meaning that you couldn't have stopped existance, meaning you did exist, meaning you stopped yourself from existing, which means you didn't stop yourself from exixsting, so you did, and the universe goes to hell anyway because you locked everyone in a time paradox in which it is repeatedly made and unmade throughout all eternity!
...You jerk.

[Keshay]

I find it interesting that everytime I get the time to philosophize (sp???) and reason my ethics, morality and philosophy someone calls me or my ideas psychopathic.

The reason people respond this way is because what you're proposing is, indeed, psychopathic.

Undoing all of existance to prevent suffering at the expense of EVERYTHING is not only a moronic proposal, but strikes me as the idea of a Malignant Narcicist. What makes you think you get to choose whether other people's suffering is worth ending everything that ever has been and ever will be? More likely than not, this hypothetical individual has some past hurt they are unable to work through and wants their pain to end. Being an egoist, they assume that all creation need to be undone in order to end thier personal suffering. That is insane.

Anyone who would undo creation to avoid pain and suffering is a coward. Regardless of any idiotic philanthropic rationalization, anyone who would do this would have to be insane.

[Spiryt]

You can know something will happen in the future and try to prevent it. Can't you?

Of course. In this very case it's the only way to prevent it.

So suming up, you know about well "everything" and everybody, and you still take away not only their lifes, but their existence.

And you don't have any right, regardless if something like "right" ever existed or not.

That's why I won't do it and why I find whole idea creepy and plainly angsty.

[Jacklu]

<.< >.>

*backs away slowly from the rapidly heating oven*

[Spiryt]

<.< >.>

*backs away slowly from the rapidly heating oven*

How do we sleep while our beds are burning

* whistles *

[V'icternus]

How do we sleep while our beds are burning

* whistles *

You are soooo lucky I don't sing the rest of that song, right here, right now. (I saw Midnight Oil's last ever live performance. Woo!)

Now, where was I...

Oh yeah, contemplating how much of a jerk you have to be to not only prevent the universe from existing, but throw everything into a loop of epic proportions that is unendable and unavoidable once started.

[Ichneumon]

As I see it, it would be a moral imperative of having such abilities. With "great powers come great responsibilities". Sure, many people enjoy their lives, but don't their coming into existence fade away when looking at all the horrible lives individuals have lived in our history and times to come. Either you do it and you prevent suffering at the expense of potential hapiness, or you don't do it and you cause the suffering of many so that others might "enjoy" their existence. It seems quite logical to me.

[chiasaur11]

How do we sleep while our beds are burning

* whistles *

Well, me, I can't sleep cause my bed's on fire. Don't touch me, I'm a real live wire.

[Keshay]

As I see it, it would be a moral imperative of having such abilities. With "great powers come great responsibilities". Sure, many people enjoy their lives, but don't their coming into existence fade away when looking at all the horrible lives individuals have lived in our history and times to come. Either you do it and you prevent suffering at the expense of potential hapiness, or you don't do it and you cause the suffering of many so that others might "enjoy" their existence. It seems quite logical to me.

And, quite frankly, this is the mindset of a psychopath. This sort of thinking is not common nor appropriate. This is not a disparagement or a personal attack, I simply feel you should be made aware of this fact.

Discuss these sorts of thoughts with your health-care provider.

To answer the question: No. Destroying everything in order to prevent suffering is not an acceptable or logical course of action. There is no debate in this matter. To do this would be the definition of wrong and evil.

As an aside, Do you cut yourself? If so, please stop, its not changing or helping anything.

[Ichneumon]

Why do people think I'm not happy with my life? I am. I am not suicidal or hurt myself or anything like that. .:smallconfused:

[Spiryt]

As an aside, Do you cut yourself? If so, please stop, its not changing or helping anything.

Bleh, up to this point I agree with you, but now, this IS personal attack.

We don't know if Ichneumon cuts theirself, and it's not relevant here.


Why do people think I'm not happy with my life? I am. I am not suicidal or hurt myself or anything like that. .:smallconfused:

You ask why people call your views as psychopatic.

And the answer is: beacuse they are psychopatic, even though you're actually healthy.

[Ichneumon]

That's quite interesting. What's the exact definition or meaning of "psychopathic"?

[V'icternus]

Also, though you see your view as logical, you forget to add up the final sum of human lives, none of which has a value that outweighs the over. All are equally pointless and insignificant. The point of stopping it from happening? Miniscule. Why keep it around? Well, I can think of a lot of things I'd like to do, just to experience them first hand...

Remember, everything bad that has come before helps make us stronger. We need that. Maybe the question you really should ask is whether or not we all want to live in a happy world of rainbows, puppies and unicorns... (Unicorn jousting, who's with me?)

But preventing existance is pointless, and detrimental to everything, because everything ceases to exist. And personally, I like existing. It's basically all I do.

[Keshay]

These sorts of philosophical exercises rarely arise from a purely hypothetical situation. Typically the suffering the questioner wishes to end is thier own.

If you can honestly say that you would have no compunctions about destroying reality to prevent hypothetical suffering (none of which is apparently your own) I would re-evaluate my perception of happiness.

Don't take it badly when I say i sincerely hope you never attain reallity-altering abilities.

[SurlySeraph]

So most of all don't see not being born at all as a great gift? Now, I'm not advocating suicide or murder. Destroying exististence would be bad, but what I'm talking about here wouldn't really be destruction, it would be... prevention, wouldn't it? Time is relative, when you decide NOT to have babies you know that you might prevent entire generations from coming into existence. Does the knowledge that you actually are preventing those generations really make the difference?

I find it interesting that everytime I get the time to philosophize (sp???) and reason my ethics, morality and philosophy someone calls me or my ideas psychopathic.

No. Most people believe that the advantages of existing outway its disadvantages. Life gives them more enjoyment than suffering, and they take the suffering in stride as without it they could have no enjoyment.

Let's define happiness as positive and suffering as negative. What you're proposing is reducing existence to a neutral state, because you believe that its current state is negative. 0 is greater than a negative number.
But the majority of people believe that the world is in a positive state, is only ever so slightly. A slight positive state, with the potential to become better, is better than a neutral state.

And let's face it: the world doesn't just have the potential to become better, it IS becoming better. Compare living conditions today and a thousand, a hundred, even ten years. Most people have far more of most things that make them happy than they used to.

And yes, this is destruction, not prevention. In the current timestream, humanity exists. You propose altering the timestream so that humanity doesn't exist. Not creating a different timestream where we don't exist, removing us from this one. That removes humanity from existence just as efficiently as a nuclear halocaust would, if arguably with less suffering. The means don't matter; in both cases, the end result is no humanity and no suffering.


As I see it, it would be a moral imperative of having such abilities. With "great powers come great responsibilities". Sure, many people enjoy their lives, but don't their coming into existence fade away when looking at all the horrible lives individuals have lived in our history and times to come. Either you do it and you prevent suffering at the expense of potential hapiness, or you don't do it and you cause the suffering of many so that others might "enjoy" their existence. It seems quite logical to me.

The vast majority of people disagree with you. How do I know this? Because they choose to live, and reproduce, and try to make themselves and others happier. If 50% of humans eventually killed themselves, you could claim that as evidence that suffering outweighs happiness. But the highest suicide rate in the world is 0.0381%, in Lithuania. Even in the most suicidal country on earth, 99.9619% of people believe that happiness outweighs suffering. You are very, very alone in your belief, and if you have the slightest respect for the opinions of others you would not make such a decision for them.

[Pyrian]

Sure, many people enjoy their lives, but don't their coming into existence fade away when looking at all the horrible lives individuals have lived in our history and times to come.Oh, heck, no. First off, the fraction of suffering compared to the total amount of life and enjoyment thereof is so absolutely miniscule as to be morally irrelevant. Your premise - that the suffering of life outweighs its existence - is a spectacular overvalue of suffering. Right off the bat, the vast majority of all sufferers choose to live (or attempt to live) when possible.

It's like you would shoot someone on account of them having a papercut. That's exactly why you sound like a psychopath - your "moral values" are completely beyond the pale of what is even considered acceptable discourse.

But let's delve a little deeper. What is suffering? Suffering is a set of emotions we feel as a way of encouraging us to improve (or stop worsening) our circumstances. Your offer, your moral imperative, is to make everything completely worse for life on account of emotions of life which are there to encourage us to make things better (or not worse) for our own lives.

[Winterwind]

So most of all don't see not being born at all as a great gift?No, I see having been born as a great gift. :smallcool:

Which should probably answer the thread's original question, too.

[Spiryt]

That's quite interesting. What's the exact definition or meaning of "psychopathic"?

Don't have anything better than damn Wikipedia, but I using Hare's items (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy) I think that "ending whole existence" would require:

- Grandiose sense of self-worth
- Callous of empathy
- Lack of remorse or guilt

Among other things.

[chiasaur11]

Don't take it badly when I say i sincerely hope you never attain reality-altering abilities.

Same.

(To be fair, I hope I never gain reality altering abilities, but that's due to the fact I'd give myself ten minutes before "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" kicks in. Twenty if we're all lucky.)

[Erts]

That's quite interesting. What's the exact definition or meaning of "psychopathic"?

A complete lack of empathy or understanding of others. Which seems to fit your ideas.

No, I would use it.
What gives you the right to choose everyones fate ever?

Also, this is murder of everything. Its the difference between firing a gun and having it accidentally kill someone and firing a gun at someone, and killing them.

[Ravens_cry]

You can know something will happen in the future and try to prevent it. Can't you?
If you know something will happen, you can't exactly prevent it, now can you? Pedantic jokes aside, no, damn it, I would not undo the universe. Life is opportunity. There is the chance of suffering ,but without that chance, however slim, how can there be joy? In this brief droplet of infinity, I, have been given the opportunity to live. What greater gift can there be?
A rock is not joyful. It just is. It never feels pain, sorrow, terror, anger, loneliness or for that matter, hope. It is also not alive. It never feels, it never has opportunity to strive for anything at all. It just sits there, to be worn away by wind and wave, to gravel, to sand and unto dust.
We are also fated to be dust, but for the time we have we can experience this gift, with all it's tumultuous ups and downs, though the waves rock and the wind blows, though the very foundations of the earth rock beneath my wide spread feet, I shall call into the cosmos and sing my song, a song of life and joy, and sorrow and hatred, laughter and bitter tears, love and ecstasy, desire and jealousy, and hopeful, wondrous, living.
And of what comes after, what then? What then, indeed. I have hope there too, but if not, if all my faith is but a helpless dream, I shall know that I have played my part sung my song and gone into the earth that bore me, to the womb of us all, that I lived. And that is something no planet, star, nor galaxy, can lay claim to. Do not try and take this from me, for it is mine to hold, and hold dearly, until my time is over, and I pass wherever I do.

[V'icternus]

I'd love reality altering powers. But small-scale ones.

See that disgusting pile of vegetables I'm being forced to eat? Now it's cake!

See that meteor head for earth? Now it's cake too!

See that big, empty Sahara desert that no-one's using for anything? You guessed it, cake time!

But altering existance? Boring, wrong, and pointless.

[Spiryt]

And let's face it: the world doesn't just have the potential to become better, it IS becoming better. Compare living conditions today and a thousand, a hundred, even ten years. Most people have far more of most things that make them happy than they used to.


Meh. Using you definitions, I would say that long ago there were less suicides, so maybe world was better.

And anyway I would say that many things today are not very good at all, even if they seem fine.

To the point, many many people could be way more happy than us long ago.
And modern civilization/technique brought some more massive suffering than it was possible long ago.

But that's an offtop, really, and kinda supports your point anyway.

[Coidzor]

Hmm. Are there any non-evil ways to test out time travel anyway?

[V'icternus]

Yes. We go back in time, to Mars, and see what it's like. Then, if all's good, we bring the whole civilisation of Earth back in time to Mars, and have one massive party. That's not evil, right?

[Keshay]

Bleh, up to this point I agree with you, but now, this IS personal attack.

We don't know if Ichneumon cuts theirself, and it's not relevant here.

It wasn't meant as an attack, The sentiment being expressed was shared by someone I cared for very much, and she was a cutter. The thought saddens me that ther might be someone out there who has so much pain inside the only way they know how to express it is to harm themself. I didn't mean to be cruel, just concerned.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes. We go back in time, to Mars, and see what it's like. Then, if all's good, we bring the whole civilisation of Earth back in time to Mars, and have one massive party. That's not evil, right?
That's not so much 'undoing the world' as 'throwing a big party on pre-historic Mars'. In fact, it would be rather awesome. If Mars turns out to be inhabitable at that time, that is.

[Ichneumon]

It wasn't meant as an attack, The sentiment being expressed was shared by someone I cared for very much, and she was a cutter. The thought saddens me that ther might be someone out there who has so much pain inside the only way they know how to express it is to harm themself. I didn't mean to be cruel, just concerned.

I don't feel insulted in any way and would like to thank you for your concern.

Even though life might be better NOW, does that justify not preventing the road of suffering that was needed in history to come to this?

[chiasaur11]

I don't feel insulted in any way and would like to thank you for your concern.

Even though life might be better NOW, does that justify not preventing the road of suffering that was needed in history to come to this?

Well, a lot of men and women throughout the ages have thought the game was worth the stake.

Even if their lot is that bad...

Well, I quote the legendary hero Cobb.

"Far as I see it, you people been given the shortest end of the stick ever been offered a human soul in this crap-heel 'verse. But you took that end, and you - well, you took it. And that's - Well, I guess that's somethin'. "

[Coidzor]

That's not so much 'undoing the world' as 'throwing a big party on pre-historic Mars'. In fact, it would be rather awesome. If Mars turns out to be inhabitable at that time, that is.

<_< >_> Unless it turns out that the humanity kegger is the reason Mars is now a desert. :smalleek:

Gah! Thinking of the reprecussions makes it impossible to do anything during time travel. x.x

[chiasaur11]

<_< >_> Unless it turns out that the humanity kegger is the reason Mars is now a desert. :smalleek:

Gah! Thinking of the reprecussions makes it impossible to do anything during time travel. x.x

Which is why, occasionally, an Unseen University approach is called for.

(Ridcully, not Stibbons, obviously.)

[Fredthefighter]

No, no I wouldn't undo the world.

Despite all its faults, the world has some nice things in it that I would miss quite a bit, such as my family, my friends, the internet, video games, books, women, fuzzy animals, GitP and LEGO.

Also, I like living a little bit too much to want to undo everything.

[Spiryt]

I've read somewhere that it would be in fact impossible to do anything in the past, just beacuse it already happened.

It would probably mean that such travel would be deadly, beacuse you couldn't even collect air to make proper life sustaining things.

[V'icternus]

<_< >_> Unless it turns out that the humanity kegger is the reason Mars is now a desert. :smalleek:

Gah! Thinking of the reprecussions makes it impossible to do anything during time travel. x.x

We could go back about 4 million years and shoot monkeys. That outta turn out well for us. ^^

Or... we could go to the past, find a planet billions of light years away that has reasonable oxygen and atmosphere, and party there. Then, we can come to earth and make crop circles to freak out the newbie humans!

[SurlySeraph]

I don't feel insulted in any way and would like to thank you for your concern.

Even though life might be better NOW, does that justify not preventing the road of suffering that was needed in history to come to this?

If things are better now, that suggests things are improving. If things are improving, that suggests they will be even better in the future. If life continues to improve, the happiness that occurs will inevitably outweigh the suffering that has previously occurred; the future lasts forever, while the past is already over. Would you really destroy the possibility of eternal bliss just to get rid of a few milennia of pain?

[chiasaur11]

We could go back about 4 million years and shoot monkeys. That outta turn out well for us. ^^

Or... we could go to the past, find a planet billions of light years away that has reasonable oxygen and atmosphere, and party there. Then, we can come to earth and make crop circles to freak out the newbie humans!

My plan is killing Hitler.

Because if you don't do that, the Nazis win WWII no matter what other time travel shannigans you get up to. It's the golden rule of time travel.

And never erase coathangers from history, or Hitler gets an army of killer dinosaurs. Which would be bad.

[drakir_nosslin]

And let's face it: the world doesn't just have the potential to become better, it IS becoming better. Compare living conditions today and a thousand, a hundred, even ten years. Most people have far more of most things that make them happy than they used to.

Yes, we humans has, in some parts of the world, a lot higher standard of living than our ancestors had, however I find that kind of reasoning kind of egoistic. What about every race that we have exterminated on our way to modern life? What about our current lifestyle that depends on such wasteful use of resources that it destroys large areas of the world?
The problem is that we are all lazy *"#@%& and don't really care as long as we don't have to see the problem in our own backyard.

If I could I'd go back and eradicate the human race from earth and hope for a better future for this planet...

*NOTE* I'm not some kind of greenpeace dude that runs around throwing rocks at cars and stuff like that, I just grew up in the middle of a beautiful forest that soon is all gone, cut down and used to make IKEA furniture. It makes me sad to think about how much it has changed for the worse in the last 15 years...

[V'icternus]

... Strangely, I can see the logic behind that.

However, let's not kill Hitler. Too cliche. Let's kill dinosaurs that are about to die anyway, just for fun!

[chiasaur11]

... Strangely, I can see the logic behind that.

However, let's not kill Hitler. Too cliche. Let's kill dinosaurs that are about to die anyway, just for fun!

Then you wind up killing a butterfly, and Hitler wins WWII.

Time travel's rules are as inscrutable as they are ironclad.

[Ichneumon]

Would you really destroy the possibility of eternal bliss just to get rid of a few milennia of pain?

Yes, I can honestly say I would do that if I were capable.

[Ravens_cry]

... Strangely, I can see the logic behind that.

However, let's not kill Hitler. Too cliche. Let's kill dinosaurs that are about to die anyway, just for fun!
Killing Hitler wouldn't work any way. What you want to do is stop Powder Keg Europe, or at least stop a certain maniac from getting a sandwich (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_a_chicken_sandwich_trigger_World_War_1).

[V'icternus]

Or I could just kill myself in the past, dooming the universe to an eternal paradox, all to get some attention.

[SurlySeraph]

Yes, we humans has, in some parts of the world, a lot higher standard of living than our ancestors had, however I find that kind of reasoning kind of egoistic. What about every race that we have exterminated on our way to modern life? What about our current lifestyle that depends on such wasteful use of resources that it destroys large areas of the world?
The problem is that we are all lazy *"#@%& and don't really care as long as we don't have to see the problem in our own backyard.

If I could I'd go back and eradicate the human race from earth and hope for a better future for this planet...

New species appear and go extinct all the time. That's how evolution works. Those that were unable to survive humanity's appearance are being replaced with creatures that are better adapted to the world as it now exists - an improvement for all concerned.

And what "races" are you referring to? The only probably-sapient beings that have gone extinct are a few hominids that humanity replaced. You could argue for the Yangtze river dolphin or perhaps the forebears of modern elephants, but the only beings that we can be pretty sure were sentient died because they occupied the same ecological niche as Homo sapiens. And I'm sure you know enough ecology to know that when two species occupy the same niche in the same location, one of them will outcompete the other. It's not necessarily nice, but it's inevitable.

In any case, the dead are dead. Until relatively recently no one believed that species could go extinct, or understood that their actions would lead to the extinction of species, or considered the loss of a species whose existence doesn't aid humanity particularly undesirable. Trying to apply modern moral standards to bygone eras isn't productive.

[V'icternus]

Yes, I can honestly say I would do that if I were capable.

See, this is where I lose you... what logic is that based on? Where does your reasoning lead to "stop anything from happening ever"? Remember, that means we never existed, nor did anyone or anything else. There's no point to doing that. The proper solution is to go the the past and try to make things better. And then you'll find out that every hardship humans have really faced in the last few centuries has been brought on by either themeselves, or other humans.

[Lord Magtok]

Hmm. Possibly while drunk in order to see what would happen.

While sober, probably not unless I was suddenly backed into a corner by some kind of shadowy government or big damn heroes or vampires.

Or big damn shadowy government vampire heroes! :smalltongue:

[SurlySeraph]

Yes, I can honestly say I would do that if I were capable.

Then you either don't care about increasing happiness, or have a very illogical idea of how to increase it. Either way, it is evident that allowing life to exist will produce greater happiness than preventing life than existing, even if you subtract suffering produced from happiness produced. Therefore, your idea that preventing life from existing would be a positive course of action is without value to me.

[Nameless]

You post some weird threads Ich. :smalltongue:

And no I would not. I might undo all the suffering, but I would also be undoing all the joy. Aint it weird? There's actually joy in the world, only everyone seems to focus on the bad things.

[V'icternus]

Besides, if everything stopped existing, there'd be no more catgirls. None at all.

... *Sniff*

[Thanatos 51-50]

If you would awake tomorrow with the chronomanctic powers to undo everything, EVERYTHING, the entire univerise and make sure it never got into existence. Would you do it? You could prevent all the suffering in the world by doing so and it is not in any way more of a murder than birth control, right?:smallamused:

Is this some sort of stealth-anti-Birth Control thread?

Regardless, no, I would not undo everything. I don't unmake what has been made, I look at how it was made, take apart small bits and re-assemble them as they were. I'd become forever lost in the pursuit of knowledge and absorbed for eternity, but I would not unmake.
Which, by the way, is way different than birth control.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Is this some sort of stealth-anti-Birth Control thread?

I don't think so. OP seems pretty dead-set on defending the legitimacy of this idea. The faulty analogy isn't to argue against birth control, it's to argue for mass unmaking.

[Ichneumon]

I don't think so. OP seems pretty dead-set on defending the legitimacy of this idea. The faulty analogy isn't to argue against birth control, it's to argue for mass unmaking.

Indeed. Let's not continue on the birth control thing, as I think it might be too political and might get this thread closed. It wasn't my intention anyway and I don't think the comparison is that important for the question.

[Erts]

Do you realize you are killing everyone in the future? When you started this topic 4 hour ago, thousands of babies were born. If you had undone everything at that time, they would have no opportunity at all.

And, you cannot say "I'm not advocating suicide," (even if you don't think you are) because you are destroying yourself by stopping life from existing, thus, suicide.

[V'icternus]

Not to mention millions of cases of genocide... billions of billions really...

[Erts]

Not to mention millions of cases of genocide... billions of billions really...

And all beauty, love, art, happiness, etc ever. All trees, all birds, all reefs, all fish, all insects, all reptiles, all mammals, all amphibians, and basically all life ever. While one could claim "but until people it was just animals for itself besides pack life! It was miserable!," the majority of animals were herbovores who lived plenty of content lives, till suffering at the end of it.

[Spiryt]

While one could claim "but until people it was just animals for itself besides pack life! It was miserable!,"

Dunno why anyone would claim that. I'm pretty sure that human can be way more miserable than such animals.

Simply, we can be really miserable from weird reasons, while animal living it's way as it was made for him - not so much.

......


It's time to sing. Again.

Mamma,

uuuuuhuuuuu

I don't wanna die

Sometimes I wish I never was born at aalll...

Sometimes everyone feels like that. :smallbiggrin:

[chiasaur11]

And all beauty, love, art, happiness, etc ever. All trees, all birds, all reefs, all fish, all insects, all reptiles, all mammals, all amphibians, and basically all life ever.

Not to mention all forms of Pie.

[Erts]

Dunno why anyone would claim that. I'm pretty sure that human can be way more miserable than such animals.

Simply, we can be really miserable from weird reasons, while animal living it's way as it was made for him - not so much.



I mean you could argue that most animals died of starvation, disease, were eaten, suffered, and did not have the comforts we do at all, even feelings we have. However, most of them did enjoy life, just a higher percentage did not.

[Lord Seth]

If you would awake tomorrow with the chronomanctic powers to undo everything, EVERYTHING, the entire univerise and make sure it never got into existence. Would you do it? You could prevent all the suffering in the world by doing so and it is not in any way more of a murder than birth control, right?:smallamused:

This might be the last words I type, before I undo the world,

The ChronomancerUndoing the world would cause myself to stop existing. I happen to like existing. Therefore, no, I would not.

[V'icternus]

Dunno why anyone would claim that. I'm pretty sure that human can be way more miserable than such animals.

Simply, we can be really miserable from weird reasons, while animal living it's way as it was made for him - not so much.

......


It's time to sing. Again.

Mamma,

uuuuuhuuuuu

I don't wanna die

Sometimes I wish I never was born at aalll...

Sometimes everyone feels like that. :smallbiggrin:

Great, now I want to sing. Thanks for that. Thanks a lot.
Mama mia! Mama mia! Mama mia let me go!
And don't forget, every movie ever made would not be made! That's a big sacrifice.

[Ichneumon]

But aren't we all reacting a bit too emotional? It's not like you would die, you would have never have existed in the first place.:smallconfused:

[Erts]

Great, now I want to sing. Thanks for that. Thanks a lot.
Mama mia! Mama mia! Mama mia let me go!
And don't forget, every movie ever made would not be made! That's a big sacrifice.

Good thing its not "Sometimes wish none of us had been born at all! Carry on, Carry on... As if nothing really matters."



But aren't we all reacting a bit too emotional? It's not like you would die, you would have never have existed in the first place.:smallconfused:


Yes. You. Did. You have knowledge that these things will come to pass. Therefore, you are killing them.

Its as if I know someone is going to trip and break their neck tommorow unless I don't do something with almost no effort or time on my part. Is it murder to not prevent it? Especially if you are the one who causes them to trip in the first place?

[Cobra_Ikari]

But aren't we all reacting a bit too emotional? It's not like you would die, you would have never have existed in the first place.:smallconfused:

Yes we would. Did. Do. Tense is hard when you screw with time. >.<

Emotions aside, there are two questions. What are the moral implications and consequences of unmaking life, and would you commit the act in question, knowing it has those attributes?

The answer to the second is almost overwhelmingly "no", except in your case. This is because we almost all agree that the idea of unmaking life is morally unacceptable. Your reluctance to see WHY we feel it's immoral is the reason people keep calling you crazy. >.>

[V'icternus]

Alright, let me put this to you simply...

I like living.

I like staying up all night online, I like movies, I like girls, I like... well, there's a lot about life I like. And they're always there. And so are some bad things. That's life. But if you can't deal, or anyone else can't deal, then it's not their job to spoil it for everyone else.

"Oh, I don't like this movie, I'll just go back in time so it never existed."

[Erts]

Alright, let me put this to you simply...

I like living.

I like staying up all night online, I like movies, I like girls, I like... well, there's a lot about life I like. And they're always there. And so are some bad things. That's life. But if you can't deal, or anyone else can't deal, then it's not their job to spoil it for everyone else.

"Oh, I don't like this movie, I'll just go back in time so it never existed."

Really?! Whoa, me too!

[Ichneumon]

Its as if I know someone is going to trip and break their neck tommorow unless I don't do something with almost no effort or time on my part. Is it murder to not prevent it? Especially if you are the one who causes them to trip in the first place?

EXACTLY! You are responsible for suffering if you could have prevented it! What makes the suffering of those that have suffered since existence and those that are and will suffer now and in the future less important or makes you less responsible for their suffering? Just because you were born many generations after their suffering, doesn't make you less responsible, if you can prevent it (trough time travel).

[Erts]

EXACTLY! You are responsible for suffering if you could have prevented it! What makes the suffering of those that have suffered since existence and those that are and will suffer now and in the future less important or makes you less responsible for their suffering? Just because you were born many generations after their suffering, doesn't make you less responsible, if you can prevent it (trough time travel).

Yes, you would be responsible for all the suffering ever, but you are also responsible for all happiness, joy and life for not choosing it!

Suffering isn't bigger than ALL LIFE EVER.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Its as if I know someone is going to trip and break their neck tommorow unless I don't do something with almost no effort or time on my part. Is it murder to not prevent it? Especially if you are the one who causes them to trip in the first place?

No. No it is not.

It's like you trip a man and break his leg. Then you go back in time the next day and painlessly kill him so that he doesn't have to suffer the broken leg.

Now do you see what we're saying?

[Ichneumon]

So you all would cause the suffering of many just so that others (many or few) could potentially live happy? Forgive me for saying so, but that seems rather immoral to me.

[Cobra_Ikari]

So you all would cause the suffering of many just so that others (many or few) could potentially live happy? Forgive me for saying so, but that seems rather immoral to me.

Go. Go look at my last post. Think about it for a while. K?

I feel like you're not reading anything I'm typing...

[ZeroNumerous]

I don't see anything wrong, morally or otherwise, with ending the current universe or any future universes. I'd just find myself infinitely bored of empty nothingness and therefore would not end the universe. Entertainment is necessary.

[Quincunx]

Teeny point of order--Ichneumon is better described as a nihilist than a psycho- or sociopath.

The infinite jacob's ladder of the paradox of unmaking the unmaker is appealing, as the moment reverted between being possible and impossible, eternally. Also I'm a muse, and if the end is artistic enough I will accept horrible means. But to be a balanced work of art, it would have to happen at a tipping point of human history, where we were either condemning ourselves to blackness or about to raise ourselves to something sublime. War weaponry or spaceflight. Pollution or religion. Pandemic or song. Now who among us can recognize the shift in the human paradigm at the moment it happens, most of us still being blinded by the concerns of our own potential?

[Ichneumon]

Go. Go look at my last post. Think about it for a while. K?

I feel like you're not reading anything I'm typing...

I am sorry I gave you that impression. I have indeed, not replied to your comments. I will do so now.


What are the moral implications and consequences of unmaking life, and would you commit the act in question, knowing it has those attributes?

The answer to the second is almost overwhelmingly "no", except in your case. This is because we almost all agree that the idea of unmaking life is morally unacceptable. Your reluctance to see WHY we feel it's immoral is the reason people keep calling you crazy. >.>

I honestly don't see any moral "wrongs" in unmaking life. I'll think about it longer, as I certainly haven't finished thinking about this logical problem, but I don't think I'll find any.

I understand why people would think I'm crazy.



No. No it is not.

It's like you trip a man and break his leg. Then you go back in time the next day and painlessly kill him so that he doesn't have to suffer the broken leg.

Now do you see what we're saying?

I don't see why you compare it too murder. Ending existence is something different from preventing it. Right?

[V'icternus]

Well, strictly, Nihlism is beleive in nothing. So I can see how that's a suitable title for someone who wants there to have never been anything ever.

I, however, find that the many pleasures of life are worth enjoying once you settle down and realise that nothing matters, everythings unimportant and learn to scale down your thoughts around that basis, remembering that the best you can do in life is be happy, otherwise, well... why live?

You really want to find a reason not to end the universe? Find something that makes you happy, and just remember, everyone and everything is tiny and insignificant. The universe, however, is everything, and will go on for billions of years after you're no more than a sprinkling of molecules in the ground.

We are insignificant, and that makes me happy. All that we have to worry about is what to do with that which we have, not think about changing that which we can't. Besides, I find it's best never to interfere with other people's stuff, and this isn't your universe. It's mine. Leave it alone, I just got it the way I like it.

[Coidzor]

My plan is killing Hitler.

Because if you don't do that, the Nazis win WWII no matter what other time travel shannigans you get up to. It's the golden rule of time travel..

Except in some timelines, by killing Hitler, you'd be letting the Nazis win. Or at least not get completely destroyed.

Depending upon when you done it, I suppose.

And of course, the number of people who can't go back in time and kill hitler because by doing so they'd stop themselves from existing. :smalleek:

[V'icternus]

I don't see why you compare it too murder. Ending existence is something different from preventing it. Right?

Because, from your perspective, it has already happened, however, it is destroying it. Preventing means that you forsee it might happen, and you stop me. Destroy means it's there, and you get rid of it.

[Innis Cabal]

I don't see why you compare it too murder. Ending existence is something different from preventing it. Right?

No. In a word. Your are still taking those lives away. Even if its technically retroactive. Your denying the entire universe the righht to exist. Your not crazy. Heck...your not even midly unbalanced thinking that it'd be better to unmake the world. These people are being a little melodramatic.

[Rutskarn]

Hell no. I live in this world. I vacation in this world. I even have a summer home in this world.

Parts of it suck, parts of it don't.

/\ So, in theory, by not impregnating everyone I see, am I denying thousands the ability to exist? Just a devil's advocate, point of interest, y'know.

[Spiryt]

Ending existence is something different from preventing it. Right?

Yeah, and one could say it's worse. Even though not all may agree.

You not only kill someone, you take away all his life. Without even asking him...

[Ichneumon]

Besides, I find it's best never to interfere with other people's stuff, and this isn't your universe. It's mine. Leave it alone, I just got it the way I like it.

But the universe's existence wouldn't be your responsibility if I would have powers to make it non-existent, it would be mine. Would you be able to live with yourself knowing that because of your choices millions of people will suffer for thousands, maybe millions of years?

[Reinholdt]

If you would awake tomorrow with the chronomanctic powers to undo everything, EVERYTHING, the entire univerise and make sure it never got into existence. Would you do it? You could prevent all the suffering in the world by doing so and it is not in any way more of a murder than birth control, right?:smallamused:

This might be the last words I type, before I undo the world,

The Chronomancer
...
You don't want to meet my RP characters.

And that's all I have to say on the subject. :smalltongue:

[Cobra_Ikari]

I don't see why you compare it too murder. Ending existence is something different from preventing it. Right?

In theory, yes. However, because you introduced the means of travel through time, it becomes, in practice, no. Time is no longer linear.

[Ichneumon]

You are right in the way that time would change in its essence when you are able to travel through it.

Because of too late editing, I'm posting my latest remark again: Would you be able to live with yourself knowing that because of your choices millions of people will suffer for thousands, maybe millions of years?

[Cobra_Ikari]

You are right in the way that time would change in its essence when you are able to travel through it.

Because of too late editing, I'm posting my latest remark again: Would you be able to live with yourself knowing that because of your choices millions of people will suffer for thousands, maybe millions of years?

Yes, easily, knowing that none of those people would experience any joy, triumph, or love had I chosen otherwise.

[V'icternus]

You are right in the way that time would change in its essence when you are able to travel through it.

Because of too late editing, I'm posting my latest remark again: Would you be able to live with yourself knowing that because of your choices millions of people will suffer for thousands, maybe millions of years?

Yes. Personally, I'd rather die than be tortured, yes. But I would also rather give someone the choice than do it to them. Especially if the torture wasn't constant, and in between the torture they get more pleasurable activities. I'd leave it up to them. I'm no god-modder.

[Coidzor]

Well, yeah. I mean, I've as much right to tell them how to live their lives as they do to tell me one way or the other how to use my godly power.

It's like, Free Will, dawg.

[OverdrivePrime]

So you all would cause the suffering of many just so that others (many or few) could potentially live happy? Forgive me for saying so, but that seems rather immoral to me.

The potential for a happy or at least satisfying existence vastly outweighs the elimination of all existence. In my view, it shouldn't even be a question. The continuation of life, with all of its tiny trials and massive cataclysms still yields infinitely more happiness and satisfaction than the elimination of life.

If you could somehow transform the world into a utopia where no one suffers (every living thing gets its nutrition from photosynthesis or something and is incapable of striving for a greater stake in its ecosystem), then that might be worth doing to some people even though you'll wind up with an extremely stagnant world. That is absolutely not for me. I want to strive to improve myself, and leave this world better than how I found it. That absolutely requires toil and suffering on my part, but the outcome is more than worth it.

What right do you have to deprive me of the rewards that come from suffering?

[Spiryt]

Because of too late editing, I'm posting my latest remark again: Would you be able to live with yourself knowing that because of your choices millions of people will suffer for thousands, maybe millions of years?

I don't know. I'm only human, with human perspective, and I'm not able (and I'm sure no human is able) to make such choices.

Realistically, making such choice would make me crazy, and make me suffer too.

But still, I would choose against your idea. If somebody necesarilly want to cease to exist, he can usually make proper things to achieve his goal, after all.

Now my question:


But the universe's existence wouldn't be your responsibility if I would have powers to make it non-existent, it would be mine

What makes you think that you're competent to take such responsibility?

And to make a choice about all life all things ever?

Without even asking anyone if he want to be unexistant?

[Quincunx]

That was a problem with nihilism and some allied philosophies, that the capacity to do something was seen as equal to justification for doing it.

[Ichneumon]

What makes you think that you're competent to take such responsibility?

I am a sentient being capable of reasoning, I have to believe I can grasp what is the rational ethical solution to a given problem.


And to make a choice about all life ever.

I would have to trust my objectivity.


Without even asking anyone if he want to be unexistant?

Well, I don't believe morality to be subjective, so your opinion doesn't even matter,logically, when it concerns the suffering of others. That's my humble opinion.

[Cobra_Ikari]

That was a problem with nihilism and some allied philosophies, that the capacity to do something was seen as equal to justification for doing it.

Quinnie, I have no idea what you mean by that, but I feel overwhelmingly like I should respect your opinion, knowledge, and authority. How do you DO that?

EDIT: And if every living being in existance informed you that its personal suffering was outweighed by its personal joys or its personal desire to live...what then? What if the sum of all "joy > suffering" people outweighed the number of "suffering > joy" people? What if the sum of ALL joy outweighed the sum of ALL suffering?

[Coidzor]

^: Weatherwax syndrome. She knows exactly where to put a thumbtack in order to make the dragon deflate. Or something.

Might makes right after all.

[SurlySeraph]

So you all would cause the suffering of many just so that others (many or few) could potentially live happy? Forgive me for saying so, but that seems rather immoral to me.

Ich, I'd like to think I know you a bit at least insofar as it's possible to know someone over a forum. So I know you're not being intentionally dense. Virtually every poster on this thread has said that the happiness created by life existing outweighs the suffering caused by life existing. And yet you continue to say that allowing suffering to exist isn't worth it.

So it looks to me like we're going in circles now. Most people believe that the joy in life is totally worth the suffering. You do not. As neither side appears willing to change their opinion, I think we can consider this argument resolved.

[Ichneumon]

That was a problem with nihilism and some allied philosophies, that the capacity to do something was seen as equal to justification for doing it.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't believe that the capacity to do something justifies doing that. Might doesn't make right.

[Mando Knight]

I would not preemptively destroy the world. Really, it's the ultimate selfish act: negate everyone else's existence for all time because you didn't like how things turned out. No one has sufficient knowledge to know if negating the world's existence is good or evil.

Furthermore, in order to prevent this universe from happening at all, you have to utterly destroy its timeline... which means that you would have to destroy time. To destroy time, you have to destroy everything--spacetime, energy, matter, all of it-- which is impossible. The full implications of it are unfathomable: time does not exist, nor does matter, nor energy, nor space. Existence as you know it becomes a nondimensional non-existence... which cannot then prevent another existence from being...

[Mauve Shirt]

I'm liking life too much right now. Wait 3 or 4 years?
Also, why would you destroy the world when you can use your abominable powers to take over it?

[Innis Cabal]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't believe that the capacity to do something justifies doing that. Might doesn't make right.

I'm not sure your trying to play the Devils Advocate here...or really...what your trying to do at all. This whole issue seems rather pointless and...well...i'll use the word again. Melodramatic. You've ignored most of the other points I could make from other people.

So...what happened to you today/this week/month that makes you want the universe to end.

[Cobra_Ikari]

I added a few questions to an earlier post. Your answers?

I really don't think this is going to go anywhere, to be honest.

[Spiryt]

Well, I don't believe morality to be subjective, so your opinion doesn't even matter,logically, when it concerns the suffering of others. That's my humble opinion.

So, again, why your subjective view of things should decide about, well, everything?

Especially, if everyone else disagree, so there are strong implications that you really didn't even grasped "objective truth" (leaving aside the fact that something like that doesn't exist in many cases)

[Elfin]

Hell, yes! Without even a second thought.

And I'd make the universe suffer as it died as well! Serve it right.



The discussion of birth control is irrelevant. If the world can be destroyed without suffering, it should be done. Even if it were simply a matter of killing us all where we stand now, that's not so bad. We'll all die anyway; we might as well all die now, with whatever suffering that entails, together, destroying any chance of perpetuating life, and therefore further suffering as would result from living.


...:smallfrown:
...I'm sorry, I just can't agree with that.
Death is part of life. Everything ends, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't start it in the first place.
And just because we all die eventually, it doesn't mean we shouldn't live.

[V'icternus]

Well, I don't believe morality to be subjective, so your opinion doesn't even matter,logically, when it concerns the suffering of others. That's my humble opinion.

And yours does?

Morality is a human concept. We made it up. Suffering is as natural as life itself. Morality is just the code by which we judge good and evil, and everyone's is different. However, claiming that morality is above the opinion of any human is a fallicy, as it was made by humans. Like negative numbers or cars. None of these things exist without us.

Now, logically, your argument isn't an argument at all. If preventing the creation of the universe were the only way to prevent suffering, then your point would gain validity. If everyone agreed that there was enough suffering to warrant mass genocide, minus the suffering, then again, you'd gain some small influence. But as it is, you're not only overvaluing suffering, but allowing one aspect of life to take up your theory for what should be done.

And what about the rest of the universe? It doesn't need to go. Why not just use your powers to blow up earth before life develops? Same result for us. We never existed.

Before, you said that those arguing against you were being too emotional... but isn't essentially destroying everything everywhere because of a few million years of suffering pretty over the top?

Comparitively, it'd be like banning a movie for one bad scene that lasted no longer than .3 seconds. A few million years to the universe? Barely on the scale.

[Ichneumon]

I added a few questions to an earlier post. Your answers?

I really don't think this is going to go anywhere, to be honest.

Neither do I, I think SS is right in saying that this discussion is not going anywhere. I will answer your questions though.



EDIT: And if every living being in existance informed you that its personal suffering was outweighed by its personal joys or its personal desire to live...what then? What if the sum of all "joy > suffering" people outweighed the number of "suffering > joy" people? What if the sum of ALL joy outweighed the sum of ALL suffering?

I'm not going to view morality as a zero-sum game. Even if doing something would benefit a majority, I am not willing to contiously do something (in this case, letting the univeriste continue to exist) that will cause suffering.

[ZeroNumerous]

Also, why would you destroy the world when you can use your abominable powers to take over it?

Ruling the world is sort of like a threesome. On paper, it's awesome. In practice, much less so. :smalltongue:

[Ichneumon]

Well, obviously I would be destroyed too. I also see no use in keeping the universe and risking the future development of sentient life to start suffering again. The only real option is total non-existence.

[Cobra_Ikari]

I'm not going to view morality as a zero-sum game. Even if doing something would benefit a majority, I am not willing to contiously do something (in this case, letting the univeriste continue to exist) that will cause suffering.

Since this is the case, I feel I should inform you that, in my opinion, your view of morality is almost irredeemably flawed. I was arguing with the assumption that you had a reasonable system of morality and simply didn't realize what you were proposing, but now, I'm certain that I won't be able to change your opinion.

[V'icternus]

But you're not doing anything. The ability to destroy something doesn't make you responsible for every bad thing that happens there. Like if I had a giant gun that fires lasery death-rays and aimed it at a town. I'm not gonna blow up the town because people there are suffering. I didn't cause the suffering, and my inaction means that that's how things are meant to be. If they're suffering, then they're supposed to suffer. They have a disease, perhaps, or hurt themeselves. Maybe they were mauled by wolves or had a finger sucked into a jet turbine. I don't know. But it's not my job to kill them. It's not my job to do anything. Now, if they said to me "We don't want to suffer any more, please kill us all", then they've given me the authority to do that.

Choice is important, because frankly, with lives that hardly last 100 years at best, you want to squeeze every drop of happiness and comfort out of your life that you can, and one of the top phsychological needs is the ability to choose.

[Ichneumon]

And yours does?

Well, yes, to me it does. So does yours to do. I'm not a moral relativist.

[SurlySeraph]

I'm not going to view morality as a zero-sum game. Even if doing something would benefit a majority, I am not willing to contiously do something (in this case, letting the univeriste continue to exist) that will cause suffering.

Ah! Now I can at least understand where you're coming from, even if I disagree with it. You consider suffering completely unacceptable - something that cannot be allowed on any scale, no matter how much happiness accompanies it.

So, hypothetical question. Let's say you reach a place that we'll call heaven. To be admitted in, you must be poked once in the arm with a thumbtack. This is slightly painful for a moment. However, once you are admitted you get to enjoy endless quantities of everything you enjoy and consider positive forever: any food you want with no health consequences, the love of any number of incredibly beautiful individuals of your favored gender you want, whatever. Providing you with these things requires no effort or pain on anyone's part; only happiness exists there.
Is getting poked with the tack worth it?

[V'icternus]

Well, yes, to me it does. So does yours to do. I'm not a moral relativist.

And what makes you different from him?

[Ichneumon]

Ah! Now I can at least understand where you're coming from, even if I disagree with it. You consider suffering completely unacceptable - something that cannot be allowed on any scale, no matter how much happiness accompanies it.

So, hypothetical question. Let's say you reach a place that we'll call heaven. To be admitted in, you must be poked once in the arm with a thumbtack. This is slightly painful for a moment. However, once you are admitted you get to enjoy endless quantities of everything you enjoy and consider positive forever: any food you want with no health consequences, the love of any number of incredibly beautiful individuals of your favored gender you want, whatever. Providing you with these things requires no effort or pain on anyone's part; only happiness exists there.
Is getting poked with the tack worth it?


Of course, it is worth it, to me. I would make the choice. I would be the one responsible for my suffering, not the suffering of others.

[Ichneumon]

And what makes you different from him?

The fact that in this case, it is I who has to decide what I am going to do and potentially do something unethical.

[Elfin]

So you are unwilling to be responsible for someone getting poked with a thumbtack...and yet at the same time willing to deny them the chance to ever exist?

[Ichneumon]

So you are unwilling to be responsible for others suffering...and yet at the same time willing to deny them the chance to live?

Indeed, because you can't suffer when you don't exist, I see no inconsistency between the two.

[V'icternus]

Exactly! Choice!

Personally, I find the idea of not existing bad enough to cause me to suffer greatly jsut owrrying about it. Sure, once I'm gone, I'm gone, but I don't want to be! I want to stay! Who are you to get rid of me? You're nobody! If you want to erase me from existance, at least come talk to me personally about it! Hear my point of view! Let me decide whether or not I want to suffer the ebs and flows of life and death! Choice, you see, is more important to people than suffering. They will accept all the pain in the world as long as they know that it was their fault. (And if they whine about it, well, sucks to be them, I guess.)

[Cobra_Ikari]

I'm gonna try and make another analogy.

There exists a man in constant excruciating pain. You have a method with which to painlessly end his life. By your argument, you would do so (I think). Fine. It might be a bit controversial, but I don't want to argue that point.

Same man. This time, the method, while still painlessly ending his life, also ends the life of 100 other people, none of which is suffering. You believe the morally correct option is to kill all 101 people to end that 1 man's suffering. Am I right?

Further, if you had the option to kill the suffering man and only the suffering man, but in a painful method, or to kill the suffering man and 100 non-sufferers painlessly, the morally correct choice would be killing the 101.

Is that what you're saying?

[Spiryt]

Of course, it is worth it, to me. I would make the choice. I would be the one responsible for my suffering, not the suffering of others.

Now I don't get it.

So you are saying that everyone should be responsible for themselves?

Then I agree.

You have however, stated, that your morality would make you responsible to decide about everything, not only suffering, of everyone else.

Why?

[Elfin]

Indeed, because you can't suffer when you don't exist, I see no inconsistency between the two.

But it boils down to the same concept- you are choosing for them. They get to choose whether they get poked with a thumbtack, but they can't choose for themselves whether they exist. You're denying them a choice, one which you have no right to make for them.

[Ichneumon]

I'm gonna try and make another analogy.

There exists a man in constant excruciating pain. You have a method with which to painlessly end his life. By your argument, you would do so (I think). Fine. It might be a bit controversial, but I don't want to argue that point.

Same man. This time, the method, while still painlessly ending his life, also ends the life of 100 other people, none of which is suffering. You believe the morally correct option is to kill all 101 people to end that 1 man's suffering. Am I right?

Further, if you had the option to kill the suffering man and only the suffering man, but in a painful method, or to kill the suffering man and 100 non-sufferers painlessly, the morally correct choice would be killing the 101.

Is that what you're saying?


Wel, not exactly as I believe everybody also has a desire to continue existing, and a right to do so. So painlessly killing someone would still be wrong. However, if I could prevent the man from being born, even if that would mean preventing his children from being born (who would not have that affliction, for argument's sake), I would do so.


Now I don't get it.

So you are saying that everyone should be responsible for themselves?

Then I agree.

You have however, stated, that your morality would make you responsible to decide about everything, not only suffering, of everyone else.

Why?

Because I am the one who has the capacity to decide what happens, existence or not. Even if I do nothing, I will have made such a choice, namely to let the world exist and not prevent the suffering. In such a situation you can't take a "non-decisive" point of view as their are only 2 options: Act or not to act.

[Elfin]

But as I said above, the point is that you have no right to make that choice for him.
It should be his and his alone, just as it is his choice whether or not to get poked with the thumbtack.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Wel, not exactly as I believe everybody also has a desire to continue existing, and a right to do so.

WOO!

I'm holding you to this point. Now I just have to equate time travel + prevention to no time travel + cessation.

[Ichneumon]

But as I said above, the point is that you have no right to make that choice for him.
It should be his and his alone, just as it is his choice whether or not to get poked with the thumbtack.

I'm sorry, editing got a bit slow: Because I am the one who has the capacity to decide what happens, existence or not. Even if I do nothing, I will have made such a choice, namely to let the world exist and not prevent the suffering. In such a situation you can't take a "non-decisive" point of view as their are only 2 options: Act or not to act.

[SurlySeraph]

Of course, it is worth it, to me. I would make the choice. I would be the one responsible for my suffering, not the suffering of others.

Right. You, who consider suffering far less acceptable than most people, would be willing to make such a small sacrifice for such a great benefit.

But you imply that you wouldn't be willing to make someone else suffer in exchange for their gaining such a benefit. Therefore, you imply that you do not believe it would be moral for you to make anyone suffer, even if the benefits they receive will make it totally worth it in the long run.

Then why do you believe it would be moral for you to eradicate all life? Though it would take away people's suffering, it would take away all their joy as well. We have established that most people believe that life is worth living. Therefore, most people would see their unmaking not as the loss of suffering, but as the loss of happiness - happiness is greater and more important in their lives. Removing happiness is just as bad as creating suffering. Indeed, I think few people would contradict me if I said that removing happiness and creating suffering are exactly the same thing.

Therefore, by unmaking the world you would cause harm to people (by removing their happiness) against their will. We have established that you do not want to cause any harm to people against their will. Do you still think that unmaking the world is moral?

[V'icternus]

Wel, not exactly as I believe everybody also has a desire to continue existing, and a right to do so. So painlessly killing someone would still be wrong. However, if I could prevent the man from being born, even if that would mean preventing his children from being born (who would not have that affliction, for argument's sake), I would do so.

But see, preventing something via time-travel is not morally different than ending it where you are. Morally speaking, the same thing has happened. You're just trying to clarify it as something else to yourself so you don't feel guilty about it, because you know that if the guy had a choice, he'd exist. Even in eternal pain, he'd exist. At the worst, he'd choose to die, painless at last. But to not exist robs a person of everything.

[Erts]

Okay...
Innis Cabal, your right. Saying "psychopath" is melodramatic.
(I know everyone is posting, and its likely you can't get back to this.)
2 points:
1: I believe, that the majority of people, (when they die) even if they have lived horrible lives, would have rather lived them then not live them. (Note; keep this away from religon, just assume you ask them right before they go on to whatever afterlife (or no afterlife) that you believe in.) Sure, some people did live truly horrible lives, but most of them were not suffering for all of eternity.
2: Yes, this is murder.
To correct my previous point:
If I know that a person in front of me is about to meet the love of their life, and go onto a incredibly happy life as long as I put in a extremely little amount of effort and time, (and, further, lets say he will live a sad lonely one if I do not,) is it evil for me to not do so?

(Note, I mean really little. About as much as thinking about it.)

[Mando Knight]

Of course, it is worth it, to me. I would make the choice. I would be the one responsible for my suffering, not the suffering of others.

And yet you wish to be responsible for removing the capacity for good from existence. That is an abomination. That is what is wrong. Especially since with the same power, you can direct the manner of existence to cause more good. With power comes responsibility... and your responsibility is to increase the amount of good and alleviate suffering. Causing nonexistence is also stopping good... which is evil.

[Elfin]

Very well said, Mando Knight.
Have a cookie.

[Ichneumon]

Right. You, who consider suffering far less acceptable than most people, would be willing to make such a small sacrifice for such a great benefit.

But you imply that you wouldn't be willing to make someone else suffer in exchange for their gaining such a benefit. Therefore, you imply that you do not believe it would be moral for you to make anyone suffer, even if the benefits they receive will make it totally worth it in the long run.

Then why do you believe it would be moral for you to eradicate all life? Though it would take away people's suffering, it would take away all their joy as well. We have established that most people believe that life is worth living. Therefore, most people would see their unmaking not as the loss of suffering, but as the loss of happiness - happiness is greater and more important in their lives. Removing happiness is just as bad as creating suffering. Indeed, I think few people would contradict me if I said that removing happiness and creating suffering are exactly the same thing.

Therefore, by unmaking the world you would cause harm to people (by removing their happiness) against their will. We have established that you do not want to cause any harm to people against their will. Do you still think that unmaking the world is moral?

I don't exactly agree with you that replacing "hapiness in life" by non-existence is the same as creating suffering. Anyway, because I'll go to sleep now, it's night over here, I think this discussion will most likely die right now. In any case, it was nice to talk to you and I'd like to talk some more, if this thread is still living in the morning. I'm sorry I am not able to respond to you all, because it's such a lot to respond to in such a little time.:smallsmile:

[Aotrs Commander]

...:smallfrown:
...I'm sorry, I just can't agree with that.
Death is part of life. Everything ends, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't start it in the first place.
And just because we all die eventually, it doesn't mean we shouldn't live.

I think you're lumping together me and RS14 a bit too much there.

He/she/it would appear to destroy the universe out of a misguided sense of entropic philosphy that ultimately would seem to imply that as nothing anyone ever does matters, so why not end everything.

I'm doing it out of sheer spite because the entirity of the universe has the temerity not to order itself exactly to my every whim. AND the fact that there is no possible way that I can be destroyed; even if all my corporeal form is obliterated, I KNOW my spirit shall be utterly indestructible because there is simply no other way. And am, after all, simply inherently important and just BETTER than the rest of the universe by simply virtue of being ME. So, really, I'm not talking about destroying everything, I'm really talking about me, personally, finally getting the chance to torturously murder the entirity of Reality with extreme violence, slowly, while laughing like the power-crazed, blood-thirsty, omnicidal, megalomanic that I am! The universe, all of Reality, would fall, but I, I alone would be able to stand in the nothingness, triumphant in my moment of final, eternal victory!!

Muha!!
Muhaha!!!
Muhaha-haaah-hahahahaha!!!!

*gasp*

*wheeze*

...

Yeah, okay, I'm done.

[Mattarias, King.]

:smallmad: Hell no. You're using a nuclear warhead where a scalpel would do just fine.

There are so many people already existing here, innocents looking forward to happy, peaceful lives. Those who would deny them that future shall swiftly and surely regret it. :smallfurious:

Though many people in the world wish harm on others, for each of them, there are many, many others who simply wish to live their lives without causing harm to others. Destroying these lives is nothing more than the mark of a villain, and no amount of "justification" will put those who wish to do so in the right. :smallyuk:

No life is insignificant.

[Jalor]

Okay, for the purposes of this question I'm assuming you mean "the world retroactively never existed", not "press a button and everyone dies".


But it boils down to the same concept- you are choosing for them. They get to choose whether they get poked with a thumbtack, but they can't choose for themselves whether they exist. You're denying them a choice, one which you have no right to make for them.
Why would anyone need to choose to exist? They never existed, so they can't choose anything. There aren't even any choices, because they never existed either.

It seem like a common fallacy with this question is to assume you're ending people's lives. It's different. They retroactively never existed. It's the difference between ending and undoing. It doesn't eliminate happiness, because there were never people to be happy, or events to be happy about. It doesn't matter that nobody was ever happy, because nobody lost anything. What does matter is the fact that nobody suffered.


Though many people in the world wish harm on others, for each of them, there are many, many others who simply wish to live their lives without causing harm to others. Destroying these lives is nothing more than the mark of a villain, and no amount of "justification" will put those who wish to do so in the right. :smallyuk:
Destroying what? There were never lives to begin with. Nobody's lives happened. It's the difference between birth control and infanticide.

[Elfin]

I think you're lumping together me and RS14 a bit too much there.

He/she/it would appear to destroy the universe out of a misguided sense of entropic philosphy that ultimately would seem to imply that as nothing anyone ever does matters, so why not end everything.

I'm doing it out of sheer spite because the entirity of the universe has the temerity not to order itself exactly to my every whim.[...]

I have to hope you're joking...:smalleek:

And Jalor, the thing is- morally, ending and undoing are the same. Once you undo there will never have been happiness, but in both cases you've made a conscious choice to remove it, whether happiness is destroyed or merely erased from history.

[Mattarias, King.]

Destroying what? There were never lives to begin with. Nobody's lives happened. It's the difference between birth control and infanticide.

:smallannoyed: You're destroying the potential of happiness. Are there really people so cold as to prevent absolutely any chance of joy from ever existing? Such thoughts make me sick to my stomach.

[FoE]

Suffering is irrelevant. Why would I want to destroy this world when I'm having so much fun in it?

[Elfin]

Oh, and Aotrs Commander- I admit to lumping both of you together, but that was merely my reaction to such crazed nihilism, not to specific arguments.

[Aotrs Commander]

Oh, and Aotrs Commander- I admit to lumping both of you together, but that was merely my reaction to such crazed nihilism, not to specific arguments.

Surely you can see, though, how classifying me with other, lesser beings* would be aggravating to one of my truly monumental arrogance?

And merely "crazed?"

You wound me, sir.

(Metaphorically obviously. I mean, seriously? Lich.)



*Lesser Beings (Lit.) Anyone who is not specifically Aotrs Commander

[Quincunx]

Interesting. I also assumed the annihilation was retroactive (and against the laws of physics as we know them) since I don't believe that eradicating anything in the present will remove the traces of its past. Present actions are best pointed to influence the future. Mind, setting the paradox art into motion would be transmuting both past and present to an infinite present moment, so now I have to ask whether the past and the future cancel one another out morally as well as factually.

Cobra_Ikari: There is a bridge to that logical gap I posted earlier, rooted in egoism*--a glorification of using one's power to influence the world coupled with a belief that power implies permission ('might makes right'). It's an inversion of the Taoist idea of 'doing nothing, wisely'.

Also, I've had several more years of having the questions about nihilism in my quiver, and only picked up this particular answer not that long ago.

*Note for non-native speakers: Not "egotism", which is wholly a negative term that implies you don't care about anyone but yourself, but a neutral description of centralized self-belief.

[Ripped Shirt Kirk]

But I keep all my stuff in the universe!

[Player_Zero]

I would undo it with a kiss.

Because that sounds cool.

[Gem Flower]

I would not undo the world. Yes, there is suffering, but there is also much joy and ways to end the suffering. I still have many things to do before I am prepared to leave this Earth. The same is true with my friends and a lot of my family. The same is true with all the other children that exist in this world. The same is true with the adults. Give us a chance, people!

[Mx.Silver]

Damn, this thread has veritably flourished.

First point: psycopathic probably wasn't a good term for me to throw around. I incorrectly assumed Ichneumon was simply being facetious with this thread, hence why I didn't respond with particular seriousness. Having watched this thread a bit more however, I suspect he sincerely believes that what he argues in the first post is correct. I won't play armchair psychologist any further.

Second: There is no difference whatsover between travelling back from a point with your universe's space-time to prevent it from forming and destroying aforementioned universe while remaining in your normal position in space-time. In either case you are anhiliating all life within your space-time point, either retroactively or immediately. Destroying the universe from your current position (such as with a reality bomb type thing) also renders all life retroactively non-existent as by destroying the universe you destroy space-time. Without space-time (which cannot exist outside of a universe by definition) than there is no when or where for things to have existed. From a consequentialist standpoint (which your moral reasoning seems to be operating under) these are therefore indistinguishable. In either case you are denying life the opportunity to exist.

If you were in a postion to prevent the begining of another universe then possibly your argument might have some logical merit. Unfortunately it doesn't. This is made worse by your self-condractitons. You claim to believe in a moral right to existence yet are happy to trample all over this in your attempt to support your already-formed belief that it is better that no life should exist because suffering is so great. You say that no one has the right to make personal decisions for other people, yet your own premise hinges on you deciding that everyone never should have personally existed. You denounce moral subjectivity yet dismiss objective analysis as to whether the amount of suffering outweighs the benefits of existing (e.g. sucide statistics) as irrelevent.


It doesn't eliminate happiness, because there were never people to be happy, or events to be happy about. It doesn't matter that nobody was ever happy, because nobody lost anything. What does matter is the fact that nobody suffered.

No it doesn't. If the lack of happiness doesn't matter because nobody lost anything then equally the lack of suffering doesn't matter because there was never anyone around to enjoy the benefits of this. There was no one who could suffer and nothing to suffer because of. If the lack of all possible happiness is not a tragedy then lack of all possible suffering is not a benefit. Both are emotional states that can only have meaning by being experienced. Declaring the lack of one irrelevent but claiming the lack of the other significant is blatantly illogical. By erasing both you reducing the final level of worth to absolutely nothing, something which would only be concievably justifiable if suffering outweighed the benefits of existence.

[Thajocoth]

Why would I WANT to undo the world? I LIKE the world. Prevent suffering? It'd prevent just as much joy. Definitely a bad idea.

[Pyrian]

Alright, let's step aside from the time travel dilemma and pose a question that may become entirely possible:

Given the chance to seed a dead planet with life, with the expectation that eventually higher life forms would evolve, would you do so?

[Rutskarn]

Alright, let's step aside from the time travel dilemma and pose a question that may become entirely possible:

Given the chance to seed a dead planet with life, with the expectation that eventually higher life forms would evolve, would you do so?

Yeah, why not. Bring it on.

[SurlySeraph]

Okay, for the purposes of this question I'm assuming you mean "the world retroactively never existed", not "press a button and everyone dies".

Why would anyone need to choose to exist? They never existed, so they can't choose anything. There aren't even any choices, because they never existed either.

It seem like a common fallacy with this question is to assume you're ending people's lives. It's different. They retroactively never existed. It's the difference between ending and undoing. It doesn't eliminate happiness, because there were never people to be happy, or events to be happy about. It doesn't matter that nobody was ever happy, because nobody lost anything. What does matter is the fact that nobody suffered.

No one ever lost anything, but no one ever gained anything either. The second part is what matters.


Destroying what? There were never lives to begin with. Nobody's lives happened. It's the difference between birth control and infanticide.

There were. Let's examine what happens from a 5-dimensional perspective; that is, let's assume that timestreams exist in an overlying dimension that contains a progression of events. For a period, a timestream containing all of their lives existed. Due to your actions, at a later point in overtime that timestream no longer exists. Hence, you destroyed it.

Or without mucking around with dimensional theory, let's put it this way: the fact that you could go back from this time to prevent it proves that this time existed. Since you unmade its existence, you destroyed it.


Alright, let's step aside from the time travel dilemma and pose a question that may become entirely possible:

Given the chance to seed a dead planet with life, with the expectation that eventually higher life forms would evolve, would you do so?

Depends. Is it possible for my species to live on that planet, or alter it so we can live there? If so, than I'll just terraform it to my specifications and set up a colony. If not, I'll seed it with life. Any life is better than none, but I'd rather prefer to further my species specifically.

[Coidzor]

Sure, what's the worst that could happen?

*devoured by velociraptor aliens*

[OverdrivePrime]

I'm not going to view morality as a zero-sum game. Even if doing something would benefit a majority, I am not willing to contiously do something (in this case, letting the univeriste continue to exist) that will cause suffering.

I think your perspective on causality is somewhat flawed here. By letting the universe continue to exist, you are not the cause of suffering. The actual sources of suffering are the causes. What you're doing is like saying that Earth shouldn't wobble on it's axis because some people have seasonal affective disorder or don't like shoveling. Never mind that a majority of people enjoy the change of seasons and there are plenty of people who enjoy winter and summer in equal measure.


Maybe more of us could understand your perspective if you were to explain what is so bad about suffering. What is it about suffering in your mind that any amount of it makes the universe unworthy of existence, no matter how much glory, happiness and outright goodness exists to counterbalance the suffering?



Let's take this from the other direction.

There is nothing. Void. Time does not yet exist. Somehow an awareness briefly coalesces into being. That awareness is you. You have the realization that with a certain action, you could cause an entire reality to spring into being - infinite in complexity and diversity, possibly infinite in duration. After 10-20 billion years, something called life will spring up on some of the orbs of rock and liquid that will eventually be created. That life has the capacity to experience joy and love - not guaranteed, but it has the capacity.
And you know that as this reality on through what will one day be called time, an increasing percentage of that life will experience even greater joys and more powerful love.

Would you create this universe?

I hope so.

[chiasaur11]

I think your perspective on causality is somewhat flawed here. By letting the universe continue to exist, you are not the cause of suffering. The actual sources of suffering are the causes. What you're doing is like saying that Earth shouldn't wobble on it's axis because some people have seasonal affective disorder or don't like shoveling. Never mind that a majority of people enjoy the change of seasons and there are plenty of people who enjoy winter and summer in equal measure.


Maybe more of us could understand your perspective if you were to explain what is so bad about suffering. What is it about suffering in your mind that any amount of it makes the universe unworthy of existence, no matter how much glory, happiness and outright goodness exists to counterbalance the suffering?



Let's take this from the other direction.

There is nothing. Void. Time does not yet exist. Somehow an awareness briefly coalesces into being. That awareness is you. You have the realization that with a certain action, you could cause an entire reality to spring into being - infinite in complexity and diversity, possibly infinite in duration. After 10-20 billion years, something called life will spring up on some of the orbs of rock and liquid that will eventually be created. That life has the capacity to experience joy and love - not guaranteed, but it has the capacity.
And you know that as this reality on through what will one day be called time, an increasing percentage of that life will experience even greater joys and more powerful love.

Would you create this universe?

I hope so.

I would. If only when, billions of years from then, I could introduce myself to the first thinking individual with "Tremble, brief mortals!" or perhaps "Can you conceive the birth of a world, or the creation of everything? That which gives us the potential to most be like God is the power of creation. Creation takes time. Time is limited. For you, it is limited by the breakdown of the neurons in your brain. I have no such limitations. I am limited only by the closure of the universe. Escape has made me god."

Good times, that.

[Mattarias, King.]

Alright, let's step aside from the time travel dilemma and pose a question that may become entirely possible:

Given the chance to seed a dead planet with life, with the expectation that eventually higher life forms would evolve, would you do so?

:smallbiggrin: But of course. Life is glorious, and should I gain the chance to create more, why indeed, I would relish it.

Experiences are better shared, non? :smallbiggrin:

[Erts]

:smallbiggrin: But of course. Life is glorious, and should I gain the chance to create more, why indeed, I would relish it.

Experiences are better shared, non? :smallbiggrin:

Plus, the opportunity to litterally play God... To tempting :smalltongue:

[Atreyu the Masked LLama]

Question.

Do you, personally, wish you hadn't existed?



Yes, I guess, that would be the only consistent point of view. Wouldn't it?




Why do people think I'm not happy with my life? I am. I am not suicidal or hurt myself or anything like that. .:smallconfused:

The second quote, in reference to the first quote answers the third quote, unless I got my copy/paste out of order.

In answer to your original question: nope. Existence stays.

[SinisterPenguin]

If you would awake tomorrow with the chronomanctic powers to undo everything, EVERYTHING, the entire univerise and make sure it never got into existence. Would you do it? You could prevent all the suffering in the world by doing so and it is not in any way more of a murder than birth control, right?:smallamused:

Truthfully, I'm...glad you don't have chronomantic powers. :smallsmile:

And besides, why undo the entire universe just because of human suffering? Why not just ensure humans never evolve? Or are you only able to undo the whole universe? :smallconfused:

[Xurtan]

That was my question: Is it either or? Do I either destroy nothing, or destroy the whole Universe? If the latter.. no, absolutely not. But if I had control of the powers, and could simply wipe out human life.. probably. Not in any noble cause to prevent suffering or such; more so because I don't believe most people (including myself) deserve to live. Just look at the damage humans have already done to the world. *shrug* We're likely to nuke everything eventually anyways.

[V'icternus]

That was my question: Is it either or? Do I either destroy nothing, or destroy the whole Universe? If the latter.. no, absolutely not. But if I had control of the powers, and could simply wipe out human life.. probably. Not in any noble cause to prevent suffering or such; more so because I don't believe most people (including myself) deserve to live. Just look at the damage humans have already done to the world. *shrug* We're likely to nuke everything eventually anyways.

There's nothing we've done to the world that wont be long gone in just a few million years, you know. Once we're dead, the planet'll fix itself... because every living thing on it was built to, and strives to, survive. (Which makes you think they kinda want to exist, eh?)

[Jalor]

:smallannoyed: You're destroying the potential of happiness. Are there really people so cold as to prevent absolutely any chance of joy from ever existing? Such thoughts make me sick to my stomach.
Why does it matter if joy never existed? There won't be anyone around to miss it.


Given the chance to seed a dead planet with life, with the expectation that eventually higher life forms would evolve, would you do so?
Hell no. If a government or an organization was planning to do this, I would probably gather like-minded people and work to stop them. Assuming "higher life forms" means sentient creatures, it could only end badly. Almost inevitably, the xenophobes and religious fundamentalists will try to exterminate them. If they succeed, then we've just wiped out another intelligent race. If they fail, there's a pretty good chance they will retaliate, and we'll be at war with a people we created.

[UnChosenOne]

Why does it matter if joy never existed? There won't be anyone around to miss it.

Because they are guided by their emotions, not by logical thinking?



Given the chance to seed a dead planet with life, with the expectation that eventually higher life forms would evolve, would you do so?
Nope. Why you ask do. I shall tell why. If there is no life in that planet, why I should bother to seed it?

[Ichneumon]

Damn, this thread has veritably flourished.

First point: psycopathic probably wasn't a good term for me to throw around. I incorrectly assumed Ichneumon was simply being facetious with this thread, hence why I didn't respond with particular seriousness. Having watched this thread a bit more however, I suspect he sincerely believes that what he argues in the first post is correct. I won't play armchair psychologist any further.

I am being completely sincere.


Second: There is no difference whatsover between travelling back from a point with your universe's space-time to prevent it from forming and destroying aforementioned universe while remaining in your normal position in space-time. In either case you are anhiliating all life within your space-time point, either retroactively or immediately. Destroying the universe from your current position (such as with a reality bomb type thing) also renders all life retroactively non-existent as by destroying the universe you destroy space-time. Without space-time (which cannot exist outside of a universe by definition) than there is no when or where for things to have existed. From a consequentialist standpoint (which your moral reasoning seems to be operating under) these are therefore indistinguishable. In either case you are denying life the opportunity to exist.

You seem to fail to understand what I mean. Life has a right to continue to exist, not a right to exist when it does not. My non-existing son does not have an interest in becoming alife, while anyone who is alive certainly has a right and an interest in continueing to do so. It is this difference that everybody here seems to not understand or at least agree with.


If you were in a postion to prevent the begining of another universe then possibly your argument might have some logical merit. Unfortunately it doesn't. This is made worse by your self-condractitons.

I don't see why it would be any different from another universe. I'm interested in seeing where I contradict myself.


You claim to believe in a moral right to existence yet are happy to trample all over this in your attempt to support your already-formed belief that it is better that no life should exist because suffering is so great.

I have never denied the moral right to continue to exist and think it is a very important right. However, I do not believe that life that doesn´t exist has a right to become existing. If you would create (or allow the universe to be created) you create suffering (together with lots of joy), however, because I believe it to be wrong to cause suffering, even if it would be for the benefit of others. I see it as a moral imperative to not let the world be created.


You denounce moral subjectivity yet dismiss objective analysis as to whether the amount of suffering outweighs the benefits of existing (e.g. sucide statistics) as irrelevent.

I do denounce moral subjectivity, however I also believe that any amount of benefits can never justify causing suffering. As individuals are not to be used as means to an end, like Kant said.


You say that no one has the right to make personal decisions for other people, yet your own premise hinges on you deciding that everyone never should have personally existed.

Indeed it does. I don't see this as contradictory as beings that have never existed can't have any interests in existing.


No it doesn't. If the lack of happiness doesn't matter because nobody lost anything then equally the lack of suffering doesn't matter because there was never anyone around to enjoy the benefits of this.

This is actually a very good argument. I'll have to think about this. I understand the tragic behind the situation. But because preventing or causing suffering weighs differently than preventing or causing "joy", I hassitate if this duality would entail that I wouldn't have to prevent world-existence. As I don't see preventing joy as being unethical.

I also think this might be interesing:


Why does it matter if joy never existed? There won't be anyone around to miss it.

Joy (as opposed to suffering) is something good, but something that doesn't exist and therefore doesn't have joy isn't something bad, while suffering is bad and the non-existence of suffering is something good. Or some kind of similar approach. I'm not entirely sure yet. I agree something that doesn't exist can't suffer and can't enjoy the lack of suffering, but that's not entirely the point. The point is that you've prevented something from experiencing suffering. It's a bit like this: Imagine you have the option of breeding an entire race of people to use them in medical experiments (in which they will suffer). Not breeding them makes them non-existent, yet the fact that therefore they will not suffer, matters. While you can't claim the joy of your unborn son when you decide to make no babies, matters.

[horngeek]

No, in answer to the OP.

I have two reasons for this. Only the second will be posted, but the first basically amounts to me not wanting to piss off somthing WAY more powerful than I am.

The second is that after everything is said and done, this universe is such a beautiful place that I wouldn't consider retroactively unexisting it. Because in my view, there is a point to life. Just preventing somthing from experiencing suffering by making it so it never existed?

Nooooo... not worth it.

[Avilan the Grey]

First, an observation: I do find it utterly ironic that you defended the stance that it is an act of utter immorality to kill and eat animals, yet with the same fervor defend your personal moral right to destroy / unmake / never make the entire universe. Does not compute.


Now, if we somehow manages to put the mindboggling concept of any one person having the right to do such a thing aside (and yes, I agree, the definition of psychopath is definitely fitting you), there is this thing called life.
Basically, we are genetically programmed to live and reproduce. We are also (in general) genetically programmed to wanting to continue living at all costs. Add to this the power of the evolved brain; we can imagine. We can dream. We can plan far into the future. We can hope.
And as someone posted way up thread: The total sum of all "suffering" (what you define as suffering is not entirely clear) is not bigger than the total amount of happiness, hopes and dreams.

You say you do not believe in moral relativism, and that is a valid standpoint. The fact that others with other sets of morals have claimed the same over the thousands of years we have existed is however a strong indicator that absolute morals do not exist.
...And this standpoint does not help you in your argument anyway; I am pretty sure that no matter what school of morals you (subconsciously or consciously) subscribe to do not advocate the destruction of the universe for the Common Good.


(Edited to add: I might consider, if I was suffering a lot myself, to use my powers to end my existence however I would probably not do it, both because in reality I am not suffering, and because I consider suicide an immoral act because of the harm you cause your loved ones (to be clear, I consider it my right to kill myself, but knowing it would cause other humans to suffer, I would not do so))

[Mx.Silver]

You seem to fail to understand what I mean. Life has a right to continue to exist, not a right to exist when it does not. My non-existing son does not have an interest in becoming alife, while anyone who is alive certainly has a right and an interest in continueing to do so. It is this difference that everybody here seems to not understand or at least agree with.
No, I understand that perfectly. What you seem incabable of grasping (or, dare I say it, unwilling to do so) is that that everything at your point in space-time already exists. You aren't preventing a future, you're destroying your present. The fact that you do so via time-travel is irrelevent. If it were a seperate beginning universe then there would be a notable difference as there would be no part of it that was existant. In your current hypothetical situation however there must be an extant point of space time from which you yourself arise to travel back and abort reality. This point is destroyed by your action. You aren't preventing future suffering, you're terminating existining life out of some misguided (and highly illogical) belief that existence is not worth the price of there being any suffering whatsoever.

Here's another point for you to dwell on. You argue that it is better for something to not be brought into existence at all then to allow it the chance of experiencing any suffering. From this logic it would follow that you would consider having children to be of questionable moral acceptability at best, if not downright immoral.


because I believe it to be wrong to cause suffering, even if it would be for the benefit of others. I see it as a moral imperative to not let the world be created.
Right then. Explain to me why your moral code is correct. Why is suffering so completely inconcievable a consequence? Why is it so inconcievable that it cannot even be allowes as an unavoidable side-effect (i.e. that the doctrine of double-effect can't be allowed to apply)? What is it that makes suffering bad?

one minor point:

I do denounce moral subjectivity, however I also believe that any amount of benefits can never justify causing suffering. As individuals are not to be used as means to an end, like Kant said.
I'd be very interested in hearing how 'allowing someone to exist' constitutes treating them as a means.


unrelated note:

You say you do not believe in moral relativism, and that is a valid standpoint. The fact that others with other sets of morals have claimed the same over the thousands of years we have existed is however a strong indicator that absolute morals do not exist
Actually it isn't. Certainly not anymoreso than the various conflicting explanations of the functioning of the universe throughout history mean that there can be no accurate model of astrophysics. The fact that there's conflict between the variour views doesn't mean there can't be an objective moral standard, as it can just as easily mean that said objective standard hadn't been reached at the time.

[Avilan the Grey]

Actually it isn't. Certainly not anymoreso than the various conflicting explanations of the functioning of the universe throughout history mean that there can be no accurate model of astrophysics. The fact that there's conflict between the variour views doesn't mean there can't be an objective moral standard, as it can just as easily mean that said objective standard hadn't been reached at the time.

Ah, but the difference between Astrophysics, and "morals" is that morals isn't a science. It's a philosophic point of view that borders on religion. That's not saying I don't agree with the path modern morals and ethics have taken (slavery, human sacrifice is Wrong, Freedom is right).

[OverdrivePrime]

I agree something that doesn't exist can't suffer and can't enjoy the lack of suffering, but that's not entirely the point. The point is that you've prevented something from experiencing suffering. It's a bit like this: Imagine you have the option of breeding an entire race of people to use them in medical experiments (in which they will suffer). Not breeding them makes them non-existent, yet the fact that therefore they will not suffer, matters.

Okay, like Mr. Silver and others, I remain extremely curious.

Why is suffering so abhorrent? What is it to you that makes suffering more important than the myriad merits of existence?

[Mx.Silver]

Ah, but the difference between Astrophysics, and "morals" is that morals isn't a science. It's a philosophic point of view that borders on religion.

I submit you don't really know a lot about how ethical philosophy actually works. Every point needs to be extremely justified and based on very sound logic indeed, where each point needs to be supported. The reason it isn't science is because, unlike science, it involves non-empircal things as well as empirical claims. It's quite distinct from theology, and very far removed from religion.

[Avilan the Grey]

Okay, like Mr. Silver and others, I remain extremely curious.

Why is suffering so abhorrent? What is it to you that makes suffering more important than the myriad merits of existence?

Exactly. Why have you this idea that suffering, no matter how minor it might be, must be eradicated even if it means destroying everything good about the world? And if you claim you, yourself is happy, why these examples of "entire races made only for suffering" etc to justify your standpoint?

[Avilan the Grey]

I submit you don't really know a lot about how ethical philosophy actually works. Every point needs to be extremely justified and based on very sound logic indeed, where each point needs to be supported. The reason it isn't science is because, unlike science, it involves non-empircal things as well as empirical claims. It's quite distinct from theology, and very far removed from religion.

Oh yes I agree, I have not done any kind of studying whatsoever of these things. However your own studies might cloud your mind here:

I am talking about morals, not ethical philosophy. With that I mean quite the opposite of what you are talking about; I am talking about those moral stances we all take even if we have not studied ethical philosophy, quite possible because our parents, or our Sunday school teacher, or the guy handing out pamphlets on the street told us they were moral absolutes when we grew up.

[Ichneumon]

First, an observation: I do find it utterly ironic that you defended the stance that it is an act of utter immorality to kill and eat animals, yet with the same fervor defend your personal moral right to destroy / unmake / never make the entire universe. Does not compute.

I don't see how my view that it is bad to cause unnecessary harm to animals through using them as a food source is inconsistent with what I have stated here. I also don't think my veganism is a good subject to talk about here as it will likely turn into an animal rights debate.


No, I understand that perfectly. What you seem incabable of grasping (or, dare I say it, unwilling to do so) is that that everything at your point in space-time already exists. You aren't preventing a future, you're destroying your present. The fact that you do so via time-travel is irrelevent. If it were a seperate beginning universe then there would be a notable difference as there would be no part of it that was existant. In your current hypothetical situation however there must be an extant point of space time from which you yourself arise to travel back and abort reality. This point is destroyed by your action. You aren't preventing future suffering, you're terminating existining life out of some misguided (and highly illogical) belief that existence is not worth the price of there being any suffering whatsoever.

This is an interesting point of view concerning how traveling through time would work and morality based on traveling through it. I can't say you are right or wrong, mainly because it's an all hypothetical, likely impossible situation. This is indeed one way of looking at it, however, I do not see it as being more or less correct than my explaination. This seems inconsistent with the idea that the world can be rationally explained and therefore needs to be examines further.


Here's another point for you to dwell on. You argue that it is better for something to not be brought into existence at all then to allow it the chance of experiencing any suffering. From this logic it would follow that you would consider having children to be of questionable moral acceptability at best, if not downright immoral.

Indeed, it would follow from that.


Right then. Explain to me why your moral code is correct. Why is suffering so completely inconcievable a consequence? Why is it so inconcievable that it cannot even be allowes as an unavoidable side-effect (i.e. that the doctrine of double-effect can't be allowed to apply)? What is it that makes suffering bad?

one minor point:

I'd be very interested in hearing how 'allowing someone to exist' constitutes treating them as a means.

I'm first going to respond to the "minor point". If I do not prevent their existing, I do not prevent their suffering and "use" their existence to let other's enjoy life.

Why is causing harm bad? Very good question.


And if you claim you, yourself is happy, why these examples of "entire races made only for suffering" etc to justify your standpoint?

What?:smallconfused: I don't understand your point.

So, why is causing harm bad? Because we ourselves, (including most animals, Avilan:smallwink:), view suffering as undesireable. We wish to continue to exist, to live, to be unharmed. Yet we often fail at doing so, sometime due to others, sometimes due to "life" itself that hasn't been to good to us, in these cases there is no one to blame. It might be because of my altruistic nature that I seek to decrease suffering and that I find it immoral to do unto others (harm) that I wouldn't want to be done to myself.. Indeed, I have to confess that my morality is based around this axiom that causing suffering is bad, however, isn't anyone's morality based around such axioms? I'm not sure.

[Mx.Silver]

This seems inconsistent with the idea that the world can be rationally explained
Clarify.



So, why is causing harm bad? Because we ourselves, (including most animals, Avilan:smallwink:), view suffering as undesireable. We wish to continue to exist, to live, to be unharmed.
Now that is interesting. You're saying suffering is bad because it hampers our ability to enjoy existing. I would have thought that from this perspective, ending existence to prevent it seems a little self-defeating.


Yet we often fail at doing so, sometime due to others, sometimes due to "life" itself that hasn't been to good to us, in these cases there is no one to blame. It might be because of my altruistic nature that I seek to decrease suffering and that I find it immoral to do unto others (harm) that I wouldn't want to be done to myself.
Although I don't want to go armchair psychologist, this is kind of raising the question: do you personally feel that you've been harmed by being brought into existence?
Regardless of whether you do: most people don't. While you morality may not be subjective, emotions - including severity of suffering - have a distinctly relative apsect to them. If you are of the opinion that everyone except you is wrong on this one, you're going to need a bloody strong logical case backing you up here. Which you seem to lack.

[Avilan the Grey]

What?:smallconfused: I don't understand your point.


My point is that you come across as having either a very psychopathic mindset (unable to grasp, or care for the will and well being of others) or a very dark and depressed mindset (I am so depressed I cannot fathom anyone, anywhere being happy enough to wanting to stay alive). The latter impression is strengthen due to things like your example above "Now imagine a race created entirely to suffer..."

[Ichneumon]

Clarify.

If two contradicting explanations of the world are both true, the world can't be logically explained.


Now that is interesting. You're saying suffering is bad because it hampers our ability to enjoy existing. I would have thought that from this perspective, ending existence to prevent it seems a little self-defeating.

It does seem interesting that logic would lead to such a strange ironic ethical conclusion, however I see no inconsistency in it.:smalltongue:



Although I don't want to go armchair psychologist, this is kind of raising the question: do you personally feel that you've been harmed by being brought into existence?
Regardless of whether you do: most people don't. While you morality may not be subjective, emotions - including severity of suffering - have a distinctly relative apsect to them. If you are of the opinion that everyone except you is wrong on this one, you're going to need a bloody strong logical case backing you up here. Which you seem to lack.

I am not sure why I would believe I am less likely to be right depending on how much other people share that same opinion. My moral conclusions are based on deduction mostly, which you could call "logical", at least when you agree some people might disagree about what the axioms are.


My point is that you come across as having either a very psychopathic mindset (unable to grasp, or care for the will and well being of others) or a very dark and depressed mindset (I am so depressed I cannot fathom anyone, anywhere being happy enough to wanting to stay alive). The latter impression is strengthen due to things like your example above "Now imagine a race created entirely to suffer..."

That's also quite ironic, as my drive for preventing suffering and therefore preventing the creation of the univerise are only driven by a care for the well being of others.

[Mauve Shirt]

As long as I didn't know it was going to happen so I don't suffer beforehand, and as long as it happens a good while after 2012. I mean, if I don't know it's going to happen I'm not going to complain when it happens. At least wait til after October.
I don't agree that it's moral or anything, because free will and the chance for happiness and all that. You want to stop suffering, volunteer and give to charity and work on stopping suffering while letting others not suffer. If it's personal unhappiness or pain being suffered, there's help for that as well. If THAT doesn't work, try some assisted suicide, but don't bring the rest of us down.

[Quincunx]

Mr. Silver: Wasn't your degree in philosophy? It'd certainly explain why you're able to disprove Ichneumon step by step while the majority of us are just sputtering out the refutation and the conclusion.

horngeek: Anybody sufficiently powerful to retroactively end existence has no superiors, only peers.

Ichneumon: You are not my superior. As you are also even further out on the scale of callousness than I am, I'd not like to be able to call you a peer either. Will let other people be the judge of that.

[Ichneumon]

I'm honestly quite surprised how someone could call me callous while my sole motivation is the well being of others.:smallconfused:

[Morty]

I'm honestly quite surprised how someone could call me callous while my sole motivation is the well being of others.:smallconfused:

Because you refuse to accept that others might have a say about whether or not they'd like to be completely unmade.
And no, what you're advocating doesn't futher the well-being of others. It's essentially an ostrich's tactics on a cosmic scale - whoops, the world isn't ideal, so let's sweep it all under the carpet by unmaking it. It's not the way to do things in everyday life, and it certainly doesn't work in relation to the entire mankind.

[Ichneumon]

Because you refuse to accept that others might have a say about whether or not they'd like to be completely unmade.
And no, what you're advocating doesn't futher the well-being of others. It's essentially an ostrich's tactics on a cosmic scale - whoops, the world isn't ideal, so let's sweep it all under the carpet by unmaking it. It's not the way to do things in everyday life, and it certainly doesn't work in relation to the entire mankind.

Well, you are right that it is about not wanting to be responsible for the creation of a non ideal world.

[Avilan the Grey]

That's also quite ironic, as my drive for preventing suffering and therefore preventing the creation of the univerise are only driven by a care for the well being of others.

And that's where your logic hits a brick wall, bonces off it, gets warped in a time stream and then stops at a bar and gets severely drunk Since there would be no "others"!


(Edit: Why do this reasoning make me think of Judge Dredd?
...I remember now; the original Judge Death story arc: An alternative world where the law enforcement realized that all crimes were committed by the living, so they made life itself a crime.)

[Morty]

Well, you are right that it is about not wanting to be responsible for the creation of a non ideal world.

So instead of trying to make the world as good as possible - which you could do if you had the ability to unmake it - you'd rather, metaphorically speaking, sweep it under the carpet and pretend it never happened because it's not "ideal"? Nothing is ever ideal and never will be, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

[Lost Demiurge]

Let's take this from the other direction.

There is nothing. Void. Time does not yet exist. Somehow an awareness briefly coalesces into being. That awareness is you. You have the realization that with a certain action, you could cause an entire reality to spring into being - infinite in complexity and diversity, possibly infinite in duration. After 10-20 billion years, something called life will spring up on some of the orbs of rock and liquid that will eventually be created. That life has the capacity to experience joy and love - not guaranteed, but it has the capacity.
And you know that as this reality on through what will one day be called time, an increasing percentage of that life will experience even greater joys and more powerful love.

Would you create this universe?

I hope so.

::Grins:: ::Points at his username.::

In a hummingbird's heartbeat, I would create a thousand thousand thousand worlds, and mourn that I could not do more.

[Ichneumon]

So instead of trying to make the world as good as possible - which you could do if you had the ability to unmake it - you'd rather, metaphorically speaking, sweep it under the carpet and pretend it never happened because it's not "ideal"? Nothing is ever ideal and never will be, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

Yeah, except for the fact that I would actually make sure it actually never did happen, because of chronomantic powers... I know the world is not ideal right now, but that doesn't mean it is okay to actively or passively create something that is not ideal.

[Morty]

Yeah, except for the fact that I would actually make sure it actually never did happen, because of chronomantic powers... I know the world is not ideal right now, but that doesn't mean it is okay to actively or passively create something that is not ideal.

"Sweep it under the carpet" was a metaphor, you know. Its meaning was that unmaking the world rather than trying to make it better is a coward's way.

[Ichneumon]

"Sweep it under the carpet" was a metaphor, you know. Its meaning was that unmaking the world rather than trying to make it better is a coward's way.

I understood the metaphor. I'm not sure if it would be cowardly however, as it would take much courage (and propobly selflessness to do something like that, when you have such great powers) to decide to do something as noble as that, particularly because you would never, as you said, be able to achieve an ideal like that in any other way.

[Morty]

I understood the metaphor. I'm not sure if it would be cowardly however, as it would take much courage (and propobly selflessness to do something like that, when you have such great powers) to decide to do something as noble as that.

And did it ever cross your mind to makes sure, say, Holocaust or both World Wars never happened, but let all the good stuff go its course?
And I'm not even going to waste time arguing that absolute nothingness isn't ideal in any way.

[Pyrian]

I'm honestly quite surprised how someone could call me callous while my sole motivation is the well being of others.:smallconfused:It's because your concept of the well-being of others is so completely incompatible with other people's idea of their own well-being. For example, if I decided that suffering just makes you stronger, and then did everything in my power to make you suffer as much as possible, you might call me callous, even if my only motivation was your well-being. (Note that there have been more than a few novels with exactly this idea as a premise!) It's merely the opposite side of the same coin.

[Avilan the Grey]

I understood the metaphor. I'm not sure if it would be cowardly however, as it would take much courage (and propobly selflessness to do something like that, when you have such great powers) to decide to do something as noble as that, particularly because you would never, as you said, be able to achieve an ideal like that in any other way.

I think your definition of Noble and Selflessness is the total opposite of the actual meaning of the words.

[Ichneumon]

It's because your concept of the well-being of others is so completely incompatible with other people's idea of their own well-being. For example, if I decided that suffering just makes you stronger, and then did everything in my power to make you suffer as much as possible, you might call me callous, even if my only motivation was your well-being. (Note that there have been more than a few novels with exactly this idea as a premise!) It's merely the opposite side of the same coin.

That makes sense. I did understood that the term "callousness" was used subjectively and it was the only logical use, of it. Thanks.


And did it ever cross your mind to makes sure, say, Holocaust or both World Wars never happened, but let all the good stuff go its course?
And I'm not even going to waste time arguing that absolute nothingness isn't ideal in any way.

Okay, now I can see this thread getting locked. Was mentioning a few of history's atrocities really needed? We can all think of things that happened in history to try to make it better, but you yourself said it would never become ideal.

It's completely your choice whether or not you want to be a part of this debate. If you feel you are waisting your time, feel free not to continue.

[Morty]

Okay, now I can see this thread getting locked. Was mentioning a few of history's atrocities really needed? We can all think of things that happened in history to try to make it better, but you yourself said it would never become ideal.

:smallconfused: What about mentioning real atrocities makes the thread any more likely to get locked? Mentioning them doesn't automatically make it a religious or political discussion.
And no, it would never become ideal. But everything is better than there simply being nothing ever.

[Lost Demiurge]

I understood the metaphor. I'm not sure if it would be cowardly however, as it would take much courage (and propobly selflessness to do something like that, when you have such great powers) to decide to do something as noble as that, particularly because you would never, as you said, be able to achieve an ideal like that in any other way.

Noble? Selfless?

Are you SURE those words mean what they think you mean?

[Ichneumon]

But everything is better than there simply being nothing ever.

I can only say I disagree with you on that. I will respect your wish and not further argue about it. Just say, that there are things, like some of those atrocities, that certainly make non-existing better.

[horngeek]

Yeah...

If somone actually did retroactively destroy the universe, I would call them many things. Selfless would not be among them.

Actually, no, I wouldn't. They just did the equivalent of killing me.

No, those atrocities only make non-existence better if you view the to be no point to the universe anyway. I believe that there is a point to everything.

[Catch]

Undoing the universe has its perks, but waiting for it to achieve heat death is a lot easier. And then, you have the assurance that not only is everything ever over, but nothing will ever happen again.

[Mx.Silver]

Mr. Silver: Wasn't your degree in philosophy? It'd certainly explain why you're able to disprove Ichneumon step by step while the majority of us are just sputtering out the refutation and the conclusion
I'm studying philosophy, yes. I appreciate your comment, although I'm really only elaborating on what other people have said.


It does seem interesting that logic would lead to such a strange ironic ethical conclusion, however I see no inconsistency in it.:smalltongue:
I know you don't, but that doesn't mean its consistant. Most people suffering from delusions (i.e. beliefs which are not true) will still remain adamantly convinced of the validity of these delusions even when presented with evidence to the contrary and shown the flaws and contradictions within their own reasoning. A strong belief is like that, it makes it harder to accept things that conflict with it.

For one other conflict, you claim thar making a decision for someone else without their consent is wrong (it's using someone as an ends). Yet, if you were to awake with the originally mentioned chronomatic powers you would unmake everyone without giving a thought for their own opinion. Indeed the unmaking of everyone not in a state of unbearable suffering would be using them as a means to your own end.


I am not sure why I would believe I am less likely to be right depending on how much other people share that same opinion. My moral conclusions are based on deduction mostly, which you could call "logical", at least when you agree some people might disagree about what the axioms are.
The reason why it's so incredibly important is that you're basing your logic on this assumption: the suffering of humanity is too great to live with. Suffering however is a relative phenomenon. This is indisputable, like all emotional states sensitivity too it and tolerance of it vary between each individual personality. If you were making a claim about the empircal existence of a particular object or similar then yes, majority opinion is irrelevent. Your reasoning however is based upon an assumption made about the emotional condition of the majority. For this to have any weight at all you need to have some idea of what this condition is which you very clearly don't. In fact, you don't even seem to care about it.




That's also quite ironic, as my drive for preventing suffering and therefore preventing the creation of the univerise are only driven by a care for the well being of others.
That doesn't make it any less irrational. Your entire thought process here is based on several flawed assumptions. You have an impossibly perfect ideal model of reality which you consider to be absolutely the only bearable one and that any deviation from it is completely flawed beyond all possible salvaging. You make claims about the state of the majority to justify your conlusion but when said majority disagrees about your claim you ignore their protestation and tout your absolutism as if it were some higher truth. You dismiss flaws in your reasoning as being nothing more than 'amusing ironies'.

This is not a rational way of thinking.


Well, you are right that it is about not wanting to be responsible for the creation of a non ideal world.
No it isn't. Allow me to quote your first post

If you would awake tomorrow with the chronomanctic powers to undo everything, EVERYTHING, the entire univerise and make sure it never got into existence.
That isn't a responsibility for its creation. That is a responsibility for its continued exsitence. You aren't creating it. You aren't involved in creating it, you just happen to have the power to destroy it.

[Ichneumon]

The reason why it's so incredibly important is that you're basing your logic on this assumption: the suffering of humanity is too great to live with. Suffering however is a relative phenomenon. This is indisputable, like all emotional states sensitivity too it and tolerance of it vary between each individual personality. If you were making a claim about the empircal existence of a particular object or similar then yes, majority opinion is irrelevent. Your reasoning however is based upon an assumption made about the emotional condition of the majority. For this to have any weight at all you need to have some idea of what this condition is which you very clearly don't. In fact, you don't even seem to care about it.

Why do you think I care about the majority? :smallconfused: I've only ever said that whether or not the majority suffer or not is irrelevant, as long as 1 individual will suffer because of an action, it would not be preferable above non-existment. The facts are rather simple: If the universe exists: some suffer, if it doesn't: none suffer. Whether or not it is to the benefit or not of the majority to exist, is in my view irrelevant as causing suffering is something you morally just don't do.

Are you claiming I'm delusional?:smallamused:

It's an interesting and amusing idea that morality can lead to ironic outcomes, however that doesn't give me any reason to think their is something wrong or flawed about the reasoning per se. You did say some things that are certainly questionable about this reasoning however.


For one other conflict, you claim thar making a decision for someone else without their consent is wrong (it's using someone as an ends). Yet, if you were to awake with the originally mentioned chronomatic powers you would unmake everyone without giving a thought for their own opinion. Indeed the unmaking of everyone not in a state of unbearable suffering would be using them as a means to your own end.

This seems indeed to be a flaw. I'm not sure how to respond to this, as that would mean any action whatsoever would be using others as means to an end. I'm not sure what "my own end" would be in it, as I have no interest in undoing the world.


That isn't a responsibility for its creation. That is a responsibility for its continued exsitence. You aren't creating it. You aren't involved in creating it, you just happen to have the power to destroy it.

That's a rather good point.

[Anuan]

Every time, I lose a little respect...

No, I wouldn't do it. Why? Cause I'm not a douche, that's why.
As someone who has suffered, no I would not do it.
As someone who has seen suffering, no, I would not do it.
As someone who has, in his life, thought about and at least once mad an attempt at suicide, no. I would not do it.

As someone who has seen joy, I would not do it. As someone who has seen the joy on the face of a mother holding a laughing baby, I would not do it.

As someone who has experienced the joy of pleasant human interaction, of owning pets, of doing a double flip into a pool, of the basic pleasure of interaction with the basic physics that govern us, watching a stone bounce down a cliff, watching liquid poured from one container to another, feeling an arrow fly from a bow into a target, who as experienced love both platonic and romantic, physical and purely emotional, and knows that the joy of these things is deeper, stronger, with greater opportunities than sorrow and suffering can ever have, no, I would not do it.

It's been said a million times in the thread already; the joy of life, in general, outweighs the suffering of existance. This is not something a government tells us, or something television broadcasts through subliminal messaging, it is something we feel and know through experience, so it's not a big conspiricy and we're all deluded into thinking it when really we're all sheep who don't see the big picture and we're obviously morally and logically inferior, no, this is fact.

I've suffered a lot, sure. Not as much as some, obviously. I've had injuries and torment and pain both physical and emotional. At times, mostly due to chemical imbalances, I've wanted to kill myself to stop experiencing any suffering. I've stopped myself or been stopped each time, obviously, because I'm here to rant at you about this. But to eradicate all of the joy I've experienced, and that I know others have experienced, to be rid of suffering? I'm neither that deluded, that arrogant, or that convinced of my moral superiority.

Also, the passive-agressiveness in many posts only weaken your argument's persuasiveness. I won't go into what appears to be an attempt at using complex sentence structure and diction for whatever reason.

Edit: Holy snapcrackle! AND pop! Mr. Silver, sign my T-shirt. Make it out to 'Anuan, my biggest fan.'

[Mystic Muse]

If I woke up with whatever the powers were called I'd do whatever I could to alleviate suffering without destroying the entire world.

Ichneumon. destroying the entire world because one person will suffer if you don't is completely illogical and is the exact opposite of any moral system I've ever heard of that makes any sense. Heck if you have the power to destroy the world you probably have the power to alleviate their suffering.

however. I think an irrevocable truth of life is there are some people you can't help.

[KataraAltinaII]

it would depend on how much I was able to undo. if it was undo it all or undo nothing, I'd probably just undo nothing.

besides, wouldn't technically, if I undid existence, I would also accidentally undo my own? o.o

anyhoot, if I could undo the existence of some things, I definitely would. but all or nothing, it'd be nothing.

[Keshay]

You know what Ichneumon, forget about my earlier post where I said I was concerned for your welfare. In the past several pages it has become clear that you're a egotistic monomaniac unwilling to consider for an instant any viewpoint on the issue contrary to your own. You use flawed, condescending verbiage to attempt to refute others and promote your own irrevocably flawed theory. I fail to understand why you even came here to start this discussion, as it has become increasingly clear that you have no interest in opposing viewpoints. (Unless it was a grab at attention or public mastrubation, in which case: congrats you've succeded in wasting other people's time, good for you.)

You use terms like logic, morality, causality, and others; but I honestly believe that you have no concept of what these words mean you use them so poorly.

I've concluded that you're either a very young, very immature individual who has a great deal to still learn and experience in life, or that you're an utterly depraved delusional person who is in a great need of professional help. I hope its the former.

In closing, I'll leave you with a maxim I learned at a young age: "Some kind of help are the kind of help that helping's all about; and some kinds of help are the kind of help we all can do without."

Your kind of help is the second kind. You will find no sane person who wants your help in this matter. Not only do I hope you never gain these mythical powers, but I also hope you are never put into a position of authority over any other living thing. Or you know what? Maybe you do need a kid to teach you something about joy, responsibility and fulfillment in life. Then maybe you'll abandon this foolish philosophy.

[Ravens_cry]

That's also quite ironic, as my drive for preventing suffering and therefore preventing the creation of the univerise are only driven by a care for the well being of others.
That's it, no cosmic powers for you.

I have suffered. I was born into poverty, and I have lived in poverty. It was a western poverty, but it was still poverty. I have had pain, raw physcial pain. I have felt fear, panic. I have felt the deep weight of loneliness. I have felt rejection from several sources. I have felt loss and mourning.
And yet.
And yet, I have seen beauty. I have been loved, and loved in return. I have felt the exhilaration of accomplishment, the joy of creation. I have felt comfort, contentment, and adoring bliss. I have felt the camaraderie of team work and the satisfaction of a job well done. I have faced fears and come out into sunlight.
Have I had a happy life, on the whole? So far, no. But you wish to take from me, not only those times of uncertainty and doubt, but also all that which has made it wonderful. If I and the universe had never existed, I never would have seen the play of a brass sunset over rippling lake waters from underneath. A simple thing, yet of captivating wonder, that touched my young soul and said 'This is beauty'.
Don't take my sunset.

[Ichneumon]

I'm not going to continue this discussion. I've not been condescending or insulting, yet in the past view posts, you've been. It was my mistake to believe we could have an philosophical discussion on these boards without accusing others of using "flawed logic" or insulting them. I'm out.

[Mystic Muse]

I have a feeling if I got these powers I'd get on here and ask you all what I should do with them.:smallbiggrin:

except there are a few things I don't think I'd need to ask about.

oh. here's my opinion of the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_f98qOGY0

[Anuan]

*snip, and then!*
Don't take my sunset.

...A single manly tear, Raven!

[Keshay]

I'm not going to continue this discussion. I've not been condescending or insulting, yet in the past view posts, you've been. It was my mistake to believe we could have an philosophical discussion on these boards without accusing others of using "flawed logic" or insulting them. I'm out.

You have already proven that you are incapable of empathasixing with others. What makes you think you're any sort of judge of what is condescending or insulting? Of course you woudl believe taht otherse were insulting to you, they dared disagree.

We are telling you your logic is flawed because your logic is flawed.
It goes something like this:

Premise: Suffering is bad and therefore should, at any cost, be prevented.
Action: Prevent all of creation in order to prevent suffering.
Ramifications: This is an altruistic action because suffering has been prevented.

All three portions of this argument are flawed, but I'll only address the premise, since if you have a flawed premis, the rest is pointless.

The premise that all suffering is bad is falacious. Childbirth is painful, thus it causes a measure of suffering. However, contrary to yout flawed belief, most individuals that give birth find the experience to be a positive one, and one they often repeat, despite having knowlege of the potential suffering to be endured. Why? because the rewards are greater than the cost. That suffering is a positive experience in thier life.

Bereavement. The emotional pain and suffering people endure when losing a loved one is often great. Many of these individuals are able to work through this pain, and emerge with a greater sense of appreciation for thier loved ones. I can tell you that the greiving process for my deceased father was among the post painful things I have ever had to endure. Sure I wish he were still alive, but I do believe that I am a better person for having gone through the experience. That suffering was a positive experience in my life.

Loss of love. Losing a relationship is a painful process. However, after working through the grief, poeple can be better equipped to seek out successful relationships, and are better able to appreciate thier significant others. Again, failed relationships framed the later relationship I have with my wife. Without those "failed" relationships I woudl not have been the person I am today, not the husband or friend I'm capable of being. That suffering was a positive experience in my life.

See a pattern here. Suffering =/= bad. If an individual happens to be a weak-minded fool who is incapable of personal growth or learning from adversity, then, sure they'll always see suffering as a detriment. That is a failing of that person, not an indictment againt pain and suffering.

If you can not concede that suffering can have a positive outcome, I pity you, and envy you. It must be nice to have had everything you have given to you for no cost, no work. Wait, no it's not. Without hardship there can be no growth, no pride, no meaningful human experience.

As I said before, I'm of the hopeful belief that you still have a long way to go in life, and that this philosophy is the product of naivetee. Best of luck getting to know the real world, its really not that bad a place.

[Lord Seth]

I've concluded that you're either a very young, very immature individual who has a great deal to still learn and experience in life, or that you're an utterly depraved delusional person who is in a great need of professional help. I hope its the former.You forgot possibility three: It's just a troller doing it for the lulz.

[Ravens_cry]

*snip, and then!*
Don't take my sunset.

...A single manly tear, Raven!
*blushes* Thank you. I was going to say much more, but I realized that simple plea delivered the point I was trying to get across so much better then a thousand flowery metaphors. I am glad to know I was right.

oh. here's my opinion of the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_f98qOGY0
Damn right, Boom-de-yada. That song also expresses my feelings of hope and love for this universe I live in. Thank you for linking, I needed a that.:smallsmile:

[Spiryt]

I'm honestly quite surprised how someone could call me callous while my sole motivation is the well being of others.:smallconfused:

But this is where, honestly, your whole logic shows it's deep flaws.

What, in the name of <whatever you want>, "well being of others?"

You propose NO BEING of anything, so you cannot be motivated by others. No one will be, no one will have "well being".

You could not be concerned about anyone (let alone their "well being"), beacuse there won't be anyone to care about.

[Mando Knight]

Joy (as opposed to suffering) is something good, but something that doesn't exist and therefore doesn't have joy isn't something bad, while suffering is bad and the non-existence of suffering is something good.

This is where you and I differ. See, I really don't care about "suffering." Suffering is not necessarily bad. Suffering happens. It is undesirable, but it exists. Purposeless suffering is bad. The pain from suffering is bad. Causing undue suffering in others is bad. What matters is making good come from your suffering.

On the other hand, a lack of suffering is not good, either. A lack of suffering is an absence of discomfort, not the presence of good. In fact, it is often used to sugarcoat evil. Why resist tyranny and suffer when you can support the regime and live comfortably? A lack of suffering, as a goal, also supports stagnation. If you never suffer, then there you have no will to improve. And if we lack the will to improve ourselves, then we also lack the will to improve others and do good for them. And there, in that unwillingness to do good, is a lack of suffering evil.

If nonexistence is the only way to stop suffering, then nonexistence is not good. Nonexistence is total stagnation. One cannot do good if one does not exist. To knowingly rob another creature, any other creature, of the ability to do good, even before that creature is able to do good, is to commit evil. To destroy the universe, for any reason, before all potential for doing good has been lost, is an atrocity of a magnitude far beyond human comprehension.

[GoC]

Time travel makes morality irrelevant (or consist solely of "do not make changes you cannot undo").

[Mystic Muse]

Thank you for linking, I needed a that.:smallsmile:

you're welcome.:smallsmile:

[Ravens_cry]

Time travel makes morality irrelevant (or consist solely of "do not make changes you cannot undo").
Take out the time travel bit. It's distracting. Instead focus on the main issue. What is being proposed is cosmocide, genocide writ very, very, to the power of very, large. After all,there will be suffering in the future. It is unavoidable. Should one destroy the universe, or even just Earth, to stop that suffering? Murder everyone on the planet, because of that future, unavoidable pain?
Time travel just confuses the issue. Strip the concept to the bone, and it's mass murder. And for what? the destruction of all, hopes joy and even beauty, for what is beauty without a mind to enjoy it, because life is not always a joy to experience?

[UnChosenOne]

How do I feel like that starter of this thread is a person who don't understand that fact that life is a painful, but rewarding experience.

[Spiryt]

How do I feel like that starter of this thread is a person who don't understand that fact that life is a painful, but rewarding experience.

I still have many points to... (point out? How should you say that:smalltongue:), although i don't know if it's even sense to do so anymore.

So for now, I'll instead "defend" Ichneuomon or maybe not him/her, but rather the fact, that unfortunately, one certainly could find at least few lives in history, that were indeed in most part great suffering, without any visible rewarding factor (although that's bordering religion so shh.).

That doesn't change much of course.