Would it be wrong to murder someone IF...?

Yes. I have no idea if Russell owns a teapot or not. Although it is likely that knowing further information about him would tilt the odds one way or the other, such as knowing whether or not he drinks tea in the first place. Whether or not the teapot that he definitively owns (supposing he has one) exists at all is another question. I think quantum mechanics would say something along the lines of the teapot not existing until it is observed to be there.

But this is an On Topic Conversation that is getting Off Topic because of my bad logic.

"Silent Hill always gives the best presents." -agentjr "Death feels like acoustic guitar." -helloween

@Tongpu

I agree sort of. But not entirely. First, the concept of the afterlife isn't necessarily "magical". Take Tipler's Omega Point Theory, for instance (much as it pains me to say). Second, I am quite sure "permanent bliss" is consistent with the laws of physics and in principle can be reliably induced. But your point about supernaturalism is well taken.

@Trickdice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

" If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Nobody owns it.

edited 13th Feb '11 4:33:47 PM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

I fear I may have outed myself as not being an intellectual. Thank you for the clarifying link and explanation.

"Silent Hill always gives the best presents." -agentjr "Death feels like acoustic guitar." -helloween

"I fear I may have outed myself as not being an intellectual. Thank you for the clarifying link and explanation."

You're welcome. But there's no need to worry about not being an "intellectual". It's a pretentious word, and the fact that you're not familiar with every obscure philosophical argument is nothing to be embarrassed about. I'm sure you know far more than me too, I've always been lazy and hated studying. I just like reading philosophy at leisure, I'm not really intelligent or knowledgeable (no I'm not being modest).

Anyway, the infinities involved would seem to complicate probabilistic calculations about the afterlife and what you should do.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

The problem with this scenario is that it stretches human imagination too far. If we could prove definitively that Heaven exists and everyone goes there, or even that Heaven and Hell and a God exist, then our politics, philosophy, ethics, economy, and daily lives would be radically different. It would be an enormous leap from what we're used to, nothing like any civilization that's ever existed (or at least, any civilization that's ever existed and stuck around long enough to leave any records behind).

Take the first case: if Heaven exists, and everyone goes there, murder would be an act of kindness akin to pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming bus - they didn't ask to be saved, and it was technically a violation of their rights to grab them bodily and shove them out of the way, but no one would say it's wrong. In fact, it's brave and heroic.

Loving parents would kill their babies at birth. Instead of saying "Nice to meet you", strangers would shoot each other in the face by way of greeting. Mass murderers would be like wealthy philantropists, helping as many people as possible.

In fact, forget murder. Everyone would just kill themselves - that would be the rational thing to do. The civilization would simply disappear after the first generation that proves that Heaven exists. The idea is repulsive to us instinctively, so we try to rationalize why it would still be wrong to kill people/yourself in such a scenario, but the point is, take away the negative consequences of murder, and it's not wrong at all.

edited 13th Feb '11 6:25:05 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

If people prefer not to be killed and aren't ignoring the same preference of other people, then it is wrong to murder them.

Let them decide if they want to enter a blissful afterlife immediately or spend a few more not so blissful but not altogether bad years on material plane.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I have no idea, given that I don't believe in an afterlife.

Anyway, this reminds me of a scene from Hamlet.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

Even if you take the existence of a blissful afterlife as a given, you'd have to deal with the notion that the person you're murdering was aware of its existence and did not seek to end his or her own life. You're violating their conscious choice to live despite the blissful afterlife, so yes, it's "wrong."

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Okay, then in cases like this, why would infanticide be wrong? When people can't express choices, it's natural to assume that they would choose pleasure over pain.

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

Babies go to Limbo, supposedly, although the Catholic Church has no official stance on the issue.

Be kind of shitty to be a mewling puking blissful sub-moron for infinity though, wouldn't it, if they can go to heaven?

Maybe not from the inside, I suppose, but given the choice I wouldn't sign up for that. I wouldn't sign others up for it. I suspect if they could express a preference, babies would desire to gain more intelligence and understanding of the world before entering Heaven.

Of course, if they go to heaven as intelligent beings (perhaps "the person they would've been" or some such palaver) and they definitely go to heaven, then yes I suppose that would be O.K. by some.

I'd rather wait for them to express a preference though myself.

EDIT: Also, wtf, what is the point of explaining why humanity is in such a woeful state of constant pain if you're a negative utilitarian? The possibility of a toothache is worth extinguishing all life if you follow those views to their logical conclusion. That Pearce guy seems awful, awful strange, mistah.

edited 14th Feb '11 8:21:32 PM by mmysqueeant

But according to this scenario, everyone goes to Heaven, and it's perfect. It is by definition better than anything on Earth, including the possibility of learning and growing as a person. You can do that in Heaven, too, if that's what you want, except it'll be better. And as a parent, if it's in your capacity to do so, you should do what's best for your child.

...And, who was that last part directed at?

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

The last part was directed at the quote from David Pearce. Guy sounds like a teenager.

Like I said, if the babies get to grow up and gain intelligence somehow in heaven, that's great.

EDIT: Just checked OP - it says nothing about Perfect, just sublimely blissful.

Going to hell doesn't exactly appeal though. Infinity  ^*

is a long, LONG fucken time to endure torture just because you thought someone might not want to wait ten, twenty years to formulate a lucid opinion on the issue. Ultimately, it's not a remotely fair trade.

Of course, if you saw someone else about to kill someone, I think you would be O.K. in shooting them. That way, I think everyone involved stands a chance of going to heaven.

edited 14th Feb '11 11:00:22 PM by mmysqueeant

"Also, wtf, what is the point of explaining why humanity is in such a woeful state of constant pain if you're a negative utilitarian? The possibility of a toothache is worth extinguishing all life if you follow those views to their logical conclusion. That Pearce guy seems awful, awful strange, mistah."

Read carefully. The quote from him said nothing about this. My quote of him was my first quote in this thread. Anyway, I agree negative utilitarianism has very counter-intuitive implications.

And I have to ask, why you think intelligence is worth sacrificing a lot of happiness, and most importantly why should people suffer for it? That is, when they don't 'need' to.

edited 20th Feb '11 7:09:27 PM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom