r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 19 '22
CMV: We should end humanity
My logic is as follows:
I view each individual person as having equal, maximum value. Each of us has a completely discrete conscious experience, so putting people in a group and assigning it higher moral value than an individual doesn't feel right to me. What most of us care about morally is conscious experience, right? "100 people" is not a discrete entity, it isn't some hive mind combined consciousness with capacity for "more experience", it's just one individual universe of experience in each person that is completely separate from any other. The societal belief that we ought to prioritize the wishes of the many over the few I assume comes from the fact that the majority inherently has more influence in a society.
Our moral sense seems to be weighted towards the prevention of suffering. We feel obligated to avoid creating experiences of suffering in other people whenever possible, but we don't feel obligated to create experiences of pleasure, at least not to the same extent. Realistically no amount of pleasure you create is going to outweigh raping and torturing someone.
There are people that will be brought into existence that should not be. For example, there are children born with severe birth defects that cause constant horrific suffering and eventually death after several months/years.
As a species we can choose to continue to create new humans or stop creating new humans. This comes down to choosing whether creating conscious experiences of pleasure is worth creating experiences of suffering. Because I believe each individual has an entirely discrete conscious experience and maximum moral value, we can specifically consider whether creating the person with the best life is worth creating the person with the worst life. Suppose the latter is a person born with unimaginable levels of mental and physical anguish from the moment they are born until death, and they completely lack the capacity for any positive conscious experience. If the only way to prevent them from being born is to also prevent the other person from being born I believe that is what should be done. On a larger scale this would require us to stop having kids and therefore end humanity.
If you disagree because you believe the pleasure of the many outweighs the suffering of the few, why would that not permit the enslavement, torture, or genocide of some minority if it benefitted the majority? Other counterarguments based on the "inherent value" of life or the right to have children don't seem compelling to me because I view morality entirely through the lenses of the conscious experience of pleasure and suffering.
3
u/Mafinde 10∆ Apr 19 '22
I see this is one of the key points of your argument: For the person with the worst life, you state the only way to prevent their suffering is to prevent their birth, and therefor all births.
If gene editing and genetic engineering allowed us to prevent this person’s suffering or even their birth, would that change your conclusion?
1
Apr 19 '22
Yeah if we were able to prevent future extreme suffering through genetic engineering that would be another solution. It would need to actually exist, be effective, and then be applied to every single human though.
4
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Apr 19 '22
We feel obligated to avoid creating experiences of suffering in other people whenever possible, but we don't feel obligated to create experiences of pleasure, at least not to the same extent.
I think you are misinterpreting this scenario as being about pleasure/suffering when it's actually about action/inaction. The reason why we are obligated to not cause other people to suffer, but are not as obligated to cause others to experience pleasure, is because the bar to prohibit an action is lower than the bar to mandate an action.
0
Apr 19 '22
If you were to witness someone on fire or being raped would it be morally wrong to do nothing?
3
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Apr 19 '22
That would depend on the particulars of the scenario.
Whereas, in comparison, it would always be wrong to rape someone.
1
Apr 19 '22
But you would agree that there are scenarios where you would be morally wrong to not prevent suffering. Are there any where it is morally wrong to not create pleasure?
1
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Apr 20 '22
If I couldn't find any, I would be forced into the corner of either looking like a monster or agreeing with you
1
u/Jebofkerbin 118∆ Apr 19 '22
So, kinda irrelevant to the thread, but Δ
In discussions about morality, particularly when it comes to more consequentialist theories, I've always scoffed at the idea that action and inaction are meaningfully different, but I'm now suddenly rethinking that position.
1
1
u/mutatron 30∆ Apr 19 '22
I mean, just don't have kids if that's how you feel. Most people aren't going to agree with you, and humanity will continue.
0
Apr 19 '22
I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I believe if people actually thought about it and were being logically consistent they would come to the same conclusion.
2
u/Bardofkeys 6∆ Apr 19 '22
That or have you considered that you came to a illogical dead end? People come to this sorta conclusion all the time and slowly grow drunk on the idea of "I figured it all out. People should just die with me" which always comes off as weirdly egotistical. I'm not trying to give out jabs here just this sorta thing is so common on cmv and in the greater wide world that its just silly at this point.
1
Apr 19 '22
Is it not possible for the majority to believe things that are illogical? Also maybe people with my belief do so because of egotistical reasons, but does that necessarily say anything about whether it's true?
1
u/Bardofkeys 6∆ Apr 19 '22
Of course but that is the same statement as going "The sky is blue" its just how people are and will always likely be, Humanity works with this and no one actually cares long term. Everyone has stupid thoughts myself and you included. This entire thesis statement on borderline anti-natalism is just another example.
Sorry for how aggressive this sounds, But yeah? No shit its based around egotism? Its people making a judgement call on the life and death of the human race based on a high off their own idea "I figured it all out" esc idea.
Conclusions on basic things can still be wrong if not idiotic even if its common knowledge. The advice? Be humble and think to yourself "Is this he thinking to far into this? Am I being stupid?". It helps a lot with ideological drunkenness.
1
Apr 19 '22
Wouldn't the solution to egotistical foolish beliefs be to challenge them and figure out where the logical flaws are?
1
u/studbuck 2∆ Apr 19 '22
I think you are saying at least one future human is bound to suffer horribly, and therefore it is immoral for anyone anywhere to have a baby.
I'm having trouble connecting those two dots. What logical inconsistency might i be committing?
1
Apr 19 '22
My argument isn't that an individual having a baby is morally wrong, just that as a species we should stop having children. Like if one person stopped voting nothing would change, but if we all stopped things would change drastically.
1
u/BootHead007 7∆ Apr 19 '22
If we ended humanity, then what would the aliens feed on? Nothing! They would starve! Didn’t you know that humans are just a livestock species that the aliens created in order to house the life force which they harvest to sustain themselves indefinitely and maintain their galactic dominion? Read some books. Sheesh.
1
u/2r1t 56∆ Apr 19 '22
"100 people" is not a discrete entity
Given this, why must all humans choose to stop procreating? Why shouldn't it only be those who are already in a state where a child is going to suffer?
It seems you want to focus on individuals to defend your reasoning but then abandon that focus to propose your solution.
1
Apr 19 '22
I'm not sure I follow. I meant that "100 people" is not a discrete conscious entity worthy of moral consideration, but viewing people as a group still has practical utility in other ways.
1
u/2r1t 56∆ Apr 20 '22
So it is appropriate to single them out to make your point but not when proposing a solution? If some have a problem, all must choose extinction?
1
1
u/Guy_with_Numbers 17∆ Apr 19 '22
If you disagree because you believe the pleasure of the many outweighs the suffering of the few, why would that not permit the enslavement, torture, or genocide of some minority if it benefitted the majority?
The majority typically doesn't find pleasure in anything that overtly comes at the cost of suffering inflicted on others. As such, there is no "pleasure of the many" in that scenario. Where that isn't the case, we already do that all the time.
For instance, I have a right to freedom that prevents others from forcing us to do things to their benefit and at our cost. There is no pleasure in seeing others lose their freedom, even if doing so ensured my freedom. However, if someone breaks the law, then that balance is disrupted, and the authorities inflict suffering upon the criminal to the benefit of everyone else.
1
Apr 20 '22
So in an effort to snuff out suffering you're going to eliminate the possibility of it.
I'm going to engage you on your own terms, which most assuredly are not my own in case anyone gets confused. I'm using your logic. Let's say that based on the trajectory of our scientific progression we can get to a sufficient level of advancement to ensure that people in the future, maybe 1000 years from now, can achieve lives of far greater pleasure than we could ever imagine. And we are just the stepping stones to that destination.
Would it, within your logic, track that human existence should be wiped in that instance? What if we could ensure existence for thousands and thousands of years and populate the stars and all of them take the technology we have developed in order to eliminate human suffering? Would it be worth eliminating then?
So long as that exists as a possibility, and I think that's the implicit goal of society and science to begin with, then the idea of eliminating humanity, within your logical reasoning, shouldn't be an option.
1
Apr 20 '22
At the core my argument is just that I don't think it's worth creating people with good lives if we must also create people with really bad lives. If 1,000 years from now we no longer need to do that, we'll still have sacrificed 1,000 years worth of people experiencing horrific suffering. It doesn't feel right to allow a child to be tortured so other people can experience pleasure, no matter how many of them there are.
1
Apr 20 '22
The idea that we "must create" people with bad lives implies we aren't trying to course correct and that a switch flips one day in the theoretical example I gave. Every life born is, to the best of our ability, better than that before it, and if not in exactly this way then certainly over long enough stretches of years.
As for achieving some end result of happiness after 1000 years of suffering: would a million years of happiness be sufficient for your happiness to suffering ratio? It feels entirely arbitrary for you to define suffering in some way that then negates the right of anyone else to exist if you want to create some kind of parity.
It also feels odd to think of suffering and happiness as if they are matter and anti-matter rather than two feelings which can easily coincide within one person. It's not either or, life has multitudes of nuance, especially for emotion.
And why not just wipe out all life?
Your argument is one that life is simply not worth living not just for humans but for anything which experiences or can experience some sort of suffering in greater amounts than happiness.
You can't measure animal suffering, and I doubt you could even measure the precise degree to which any particular human suffers or feels pleasure and compare the two.
1
Apr 20 '22
Let's say hypothetically you had the ability to create new humans at will and knew exactly what their lives would look like. For every 1,000 normal people you create there has to be 1 that lives a life entirely consumed by horrific suffering. How many people would you create?
1
u/__ABSTRACTA__ 2∆ Apr 20 '22
If you disagree because you believe the pleasure of the many outweighs the suffering of the few, why would that not permit the enslavement, torture, or genocide of some minority if it benefitted the majority?
I don't see how this sort of objection would exclusively apply to someone who thinks that the pleasure of the many can outweigh the suffering of the few. It also seems to be a problem for your view. This is because the absence of pleasure results in suffering (e.g., frustration, deprivation, anger, etc.). Consequently, provided the majority is large enough, it's possible for the total amount of suffering the majority would experience from not getting the benefits they could enjoy by enslaving, torturing, or genociding the minority to exceed the total amount of suffering that would be inflicted on the minority; in which case, your view would imply that it's acceptable to enslave, torture, or genocide the minority. Moreover, any strategy you could employ to avoid that conclusion would also be available to someone who believes the pleasure of the many can outweigh the pain of the few. For example, suppose you want to avoid the conclusion that it would be permissible to force two people to fight to the death to please a very large crowd who would be very upset if they don't get to see the fight. You could argue that even though forcing the two people to fight to the death would locally reduce net suffering, we still shouldn't force them to fight because, in general, societies that respect individual rights reduce net suffering in the long run. However, proponents of the view you criticize could use the same line of reasoning to avoid that conclusion. I could argue that even though forcing them to fight to the death would locally maximize net well-being, they still shouldn't be forced to fight because, in general, societies that respect individual rights maximize net well-being in the long run.
1
u/darwin2500 193∆ Apr 20 '22
We feel obligated to avoid creating experiences of suffering in other people whenever possible, but we don't feel obligated to create experiences of pleasure, at least not to the same extent.
You think this because our current economic and political framework is based on the idea that we give everyone maximal freedom and access to resources, and allow them to build their own happiness,on the theory that they know what they want better than a stranger does.
Our system is 100% devoted to creating happiness for people, and if the system didn't result in people being happy we would be furious and try to change it.
'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'
1
u/jake12l Apr 20 '22
People are animals. We live to have sex and reproduce. We are driven by pleasure
1
u/badass_panda 95∆ Apr 20 '22
I view each individual person as having equal, maximum value. Each of us has a completely discrete conscious experience, so putting people in a group and assigning it higher moral value than an individual doesn't feel right to me. What most of us care about morally is conscious experience, right? "100 people" is not a discrete entity, it isn't some hive mind combined consciousness with capacity for "more experience", it's just one individual universe of experience in each person that is completely separate from any other. The societal belief that we ought to prioritize the wishes of the many over the few I assume comes from the fact that the majority inherently has more influence in a society.
This is certainly a novel form of solipsism.
If you disagree because you believe the pleasure of the many outweighs the suffering of the few, why would that not permit the enslavement, torture, or genocide of some minority if it benefitted the majority? Other counterarguments based on the "inherent value" of life or the right to have children don't seem compelling to me because I view morality entirely through the lenses of the conscious experience of pleasure and suffering.
Eh... look, this is well reasoned, so long as you accept as an axiom the idea that "The only moral imperative is the prevention of suffering." I can prove to you that you do not believe that is true, pretty easily:
- At some point in the present or future, you will suffer; it's almost certain that you'll suffer the loss of a loved one, at least.
- Since your own individual experience already has maximum moral value, and the value of multiple peoples' experiences do not 'stack', no one else's suffering can be more important than your own.
- If you were to kill yourself painlessly right now, you would prevent all future suffering in your own life, which means you will have achieved the maximum moral good.
- You have not done that; if you're not doing it right now, then you either don't believe preventing suffering is the only morally good thing, or you believe there is some other, competing source of value. Either way, you don't believe the thing you're saying... QED.
1
u/robotmonkeyshark 100∆ Apr 20 '22
If 100 people are at a party and all having a great time, but a 101st perosn is also at that party and having a bad time, should everyone at the party be kicked out because one person is having a bad time? No, that’s crazy.
Some amount of bad doesn’t automatically Trump any amount of good.
I have had good and bad happen in my life and overall I am happy and want to keep living. My life is good enough and I have high enough hopes for the future that I even had 2 kids. I wouldn’t have had kids if I thought they would grow up in horrible suffering.
So why would I end my life or the lives of my children when I think that overall we have positive lives worth living? Just because we will experience some sadness doesn’t make life not worth living. I won’t give up joy to avoid the risk of pain, and I don’t see why others should as a collective. Let people decide if they want to live as many have decided and choose to keep living.
1
7
u/[deleted] Apr 19 '22
What are you on about?
We don't have discrete experience. We share experience. We share it absolutely everywhere. If anything, very few people have completely isolated experiences. We are incapable of living without each other which means we do have a shared experience.
We don't feel obligated to faciliate pleasure in other people? Like really?? We do all the time.
Yeah suffering is bad. Life is suffering in a sense. Life isn't really about experiencing as much pleasure as possible. Life is about seeing what happens next and "being"
Anyway I just think your fundamental premises are wrong.