Would you undo the world?

[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.

[Aotrs Commander]

...
...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.]

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.