Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_jb98zqh wrote

2

SvetlanaButosky t1_jba6umy wrote

>I feel like all these are built on the same foundations that suffering should be minimised to the extreme and suffering is unavoidable for life (at least some of it) so the only way to totally remove suffering is to remove life. If you reject the extreme minimisation premise then you don't have this dilemma. Perhaps we need to accept suffering as unavoidable and our philosophies should aim to avoid the creation of any avoidable suffering instead (and accept that we may not be able to get 100% of it)?

So if extreme minimization is not the goal, what is/are the goal(s)?

There has to be something much more valuable? Enough to make us accept the sacrifice of these unlucky sufferers? What is it though?

To become a zombie matrix is not the goal, the argument is to remove extreme suffering from existence, so that nobody has to go through it.

1

[deleted] t1_jba8u6e wrote

[deleted]

1

SvetlanaButosky t1_jbaea3o wrote

>Life? Existence? Are those such throwaway things?

You know about the repugnant conclusion?

Life and existence itself are not the things people value, its the quality of it.

If most lives are horrible with no prospect of betterment, I doubt we would want it to continue. lol

This is not the case, hence we persist, but this IS the case for some unlucky victims, which is why some philosophies argue that we must evaluated life from their perspective and concluded that we should end it to spare future generation of victims.

It is an extreme position, but it is not without merit.

If we want to argue that something is so valuable that we have no choice but to accept the existence of these perpetual victims, then it better be something really worth it, but what would it be?

Positive conscious experience for the "majority" of luckier people? Is this drug addictive enough to continue our existence and risk the suffering of millions?

1