Why choose 'killing' rather than 'suffering' as the thing to be minimized, Rott?
Be not afraid...
One Winged Egret
It's possible to die without suffering. And if you kill the family and friends too then no one suffers. However, they also lose the ability to be happy in the future.
Personally, I look at total net happiness over time. The future stretches out infinitely after all (ignoring heat death and such). Some things are worth dying for, and some things are worth killing for. You'd just better make damned sure you know what you're doing first.
edited 29th Mar '11 4:33:49 AM by Clarste
Dog and Pony Show
Because that's negative utilitarianism, the reductio ad absurdum of which is "kill everyone, if you can do it painlessly."
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
One Winged Egret
You can't maximize happiness by killing everyone. Unless you just take it as a premise that there will always be more suffering than happiness.
edited 25th Nov '12 3:53:58 PM by JosefBugman
The Shadows Devour You.
The key thing is to "Minimise Suffering, Maximise Happiness"
You can't maximise happiness if everyone is dead!
edited 29th Mar '11 4:43:15 AM by GameChainsaw
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
One Winged Egret
Of course, the next Reductio would obviously be "brainwash the drones" or "drug everyone up so they can only feel happiness".
edited 29th Mar '11 4:44:36 AM by Clarste
Dog and Pony Show
@Bugman: Is "Euthanasia is forbidden" really such an absurd and onerous extreme to you?
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
edited 25th Nov '12 3:54:11 PM by JosefBugman
The Shadows Devour You.
"Minimise Suffering, Maximise Non-Artificial Happiness?"
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
Dog and Pony Show
What the Devil are you on about? Do you sincerely believe "euthanize as many beings as you can to prevent their future suffering" and "euthanasia is forbidden" are equally absurd statements, or are you just arguing in bad faith?
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
Self-ownership and outright individual sovereignty are my first principles.
I despise the social contract "theory" with all my heart and all my soul. A contract can't be imposed on unwilling parties by force.
edited 29th Mar '11 4:54:31 AM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
One Winged Egret
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Exactly. It's all about the subclauses. I find that most people tend to have things they already believe and make up the premises to suit that, rather than the other way around. Not that that's a problem, but it's much less elegant looking.
edited 29th Mar '11 4:55:02 AM by Clarste
Tyrannicidal Maniac
This, or as close enough as one can get to it as a philosophical amoralist.
edited 29th Mar '11 4:55:38 AM by MRDA1981
Enjoy the Inferno...
No, Rott, I believe he was referring to "reduce killing = torture is fine so long as nobody dies" and "reduce suffering = killing is fine as long as nobody suffers".
I think probably both principles have a place.
Be not afraid...
`
edited 25th Nov '12 3:54:58 PM by JosefBugman
Dog and Pony Show
@Loni: Where do you get the idea that my principles include inflicting torture?
@Bugman: Just give a straight answer to my question.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
One Winged Egret
I've always liked the joke morality of "turn everything in the universe into your own genetic material".
edited 25th Nov '12 3:55:18 PM by JosefBugman
~sigh~ If "murder everyone as long as it's painless" is the reductio ad absurdium of my position, Rott, "Torture is fine as long as nobody dies" is the reductio ad absurdium of yours.
You agree that both of these are wrong, correct?
Be not afraid...
Dog and Pony Show
@Bugman: You're going to have to explain how I misinterpreted
"And the reducto ad absurdum of your position is 'keep everyone alive forever no matter how much pain they are in, or how much they want to die'."
@Loni: Um, "painlessly euthanize as many sentient beings as possible" is widely recognized as the most efficient way to fulfill negative utilitarian ethics (do you understand how reductio ad absurdum works in formal logic?) Just Google "negative utilitarian" + kill if you doubt me.
The "torture everyone" imperative, on the other hand, is something you just made up.
edited 29th Mar '11 5:12:01 AM by Rottweiler
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
edited 25th Nov '12 3:55:30 PM by JosefBugman
Dog and Pony Show
@Bugman: Because "euthanasia is forbidden" is not an absurd principle. Your premises are wrong.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
One Winged Egret
I think "euthanasia is forbidden" is pretty absurd, personally.
Creating a new thread to avoid thumps...
On the Other Handle said...
Mine (and most tropers') happens to be "Maximize pleasure and minimize pain". Simple enough, but it requires some tricky compromises and judgment calls to make work, and for most people, that's where there's room for debate. In your case, it appears that the very first, fundamental "ought" statement is different (although I can't say what it is), so there doesn't seem to be room for reconciliation.
I go with "killing is to be minimized". I see this as maintaining a memetic immune system against supporting mass murder even by people whose political goals you agree with, rather than becoming Walter Duranty and praising Stalin or Noam Chomsky and praising the Khmer Rouge.
I'm always curious why people choose first principles other than this.
edited 29th Mar '11 3:53:26 AM by Rottweiler
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard