Push the button? (Worldview & basis of moral reasoning)

Neuro

A little experiment:

- You are alone and before you is a red button.
- Only you know of the existence of this button.
- It has been designed so that it can only be used by you and you alone.
- The button, if pressed, will instantly and painlessly kill every living organism on the planet.
- In one minute the button will permantently disarm itself.

What action do you take?
What are your reasons for taking that action?

RagShagBill

Do you know that it will kill everything?

trinitylucan

I ignore the button. Its so much easier and lazier to destroy than create. Besides I like life

Fysh

Not being suicidal, i don't push it. The emergence of life has had both good and bad results; better to try and deal with the bad results and optimise the good than eliminate everything for fear of the bad results...

sceptre

RagShagBill wrote:

Do you know that it will kill everything?

If you've doubts and just want to see, if it does, you'll never have had the satisfaction of knowing that it did as it'll instantly kill you. Mind you, if it doesn't you can have a good laugh at the cheap components.

Dades

Neuro wrote:

What action do you take?
What are your reasons for taking that action?

No way I'd press it.
(I just got a new car for a start).

Besides the button doen't work.

transperson

A little experiment:

- You are alone and before you is a red button.
- Only you know of the existence of this button.
- It has been designed so that it can only be used by you and you alone.
- The button, if pressed, will instantly and painlessly kill every living organism on the planet.
- In one minute the button will permantently disarm itself.

What action do you take?
What are your reasons for taking that action?

tragically nihilistic to even ask that question. is there no value what-so-ever in anything?

Neuro

transperson wrote:

tragically nihilistic to even ask that question. is there no value what-so-ever in anything?

Yes, your typical Nihilist is a bit of a navel gazer. Whilst Nihilists are technically correct in saying that at some point in the future the Universe will end along with everything in it, their conclusion that 'nothing really matters so why bother' is flawed and is a thesis I fundamentally disagree with.

Nihilism is not a philosophy; it's just a single scientific fact endlessly repeated. At this moment in time we DO exist and we DO suffer. For Nihilism to class these things as 'nothing' or 'unimportant' is naive, cruel and useless.

The problem of suffering in the world is current and very real and therefore requires a philosophical framework which will allow us to better understand the problem and find solutions to it.

My original post is far more closely related to Negative Utilitarianism than it is to Nihilism.

From Wikipedia:

Negative Utilitarianism
Most utilitarian theories deal with producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Negative utilitarianism requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest amount of harm for the greatest number. Proponents argue that this is a more efficacious ethical formula, since, they contend, there are many more ways to do harm than to do good, and the greatest harms are more consequential than the greatest goods.

transperson

The problem of suffering in the world is current and very real and therefore requires a philosophical framework which will allow us to better understand the problem and find solutions to it.

all great philosophical, political and religious traditions have aimed at making life better, its not really a new problem

besides is there that much suffering? Schopeanhuar seems very negative to me, there is many animals[including humans] who are happy and content. of course there is pain but there is also pleasure, and animals come to terms with their situation, they adapt. is the world really that bad? [BTW im fairly naive and young ]

Negative Utilitarianism

it this example contending that it is a way of solving the worlds suffering by eliminating the problem altogether by killing all life, then there is no suffering! is that a good thing? can we really rely on a utilitarian standpoint to inform us on how to end suffeing and make individual beings suffering free?

an aside- if we invented a drug that had a net gain in happyness for everyone who took it, would it be justified for everyone to take it from a utilitarian point of view. [for example Soma in Aldous Huxley's Brave new world, or pure MDMA]

a single scientific fact

.
heres another one
we are all going to die!

hence our lives are worthless and a better way would be just to kill ourselves now? it seems that you are proposing something similar with the first post. suffering happens [on an unknownly large or small scale] therefore we should end suffering by ending life. its absurd.

inevitable facts of the future need not affect now, now is when we are and now is when we can be happy, fulfilled and enlightened or sad, suffering and depressed does it really matter either way, get on with what you are doing now.
solution to the commited nihilist- since nothing matters in any case, then why not be happy and generous when ultimately it makes no difference wether you are happy or sad mean or generous


btw, from the title of the thread,

my worldview is largely Buddhist, with a dashs of Schopeanhaur, Neitzsche and taoism thrown in, despite this i maintain my optimism on life.

my basis on moral reasoning is my knowledge of the fact that other being are sentinent beings that can suffer just like myself and the fact that they are as much a centre of world awareness as myself, ie empathy or compassion is the basis of morality.

OfflerCrocGod

I'd press the blue button.

Kell

I'd press it.

Thats it? Question answered? Great.

K-

Kell

I'd press it.

That it? Question answered? Great.

K-