Would you undo the world?

[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?

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?

[Erts]

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?

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

[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. .

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?

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

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?

[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]

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? I don't understand your point.

So, why is causing harm bad? Because we ourselves, (including most animals, Avilan), 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), 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? 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.

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.