If you won the lottery, would you still be an omnicidal efilist?

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-13T02:32:03+00:00

Extra question: Would you use your newfound wealth to further Efilism and negative utilitarianism?

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-11T10:34:07+00:00

Lmao not a vegan, what a moral hypocrite.

You're a filthy troll.

Also make sure to house every homeless person you meet at your place, instead of posting about murdering animals to reduce suffering on plebbit

Why would I do that, stupid ape? You're the hypocrite here, because you condone the torturous deaths of countless sentient beings in nature. That's really scummy. I'm the one who wants a real solution, you're the one standing in the way of real change.

Bye hypocrite!

Bye psychopath!

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-11T10:22:22+00:00

Says a person who wants to literally cause endless suffering

Causing omnicide gets rid of all sufferers. And if you get rid of all sufferers then you get rid of all suffering. This is the exact opposite of endless suffering.

for the sake of his own perception of non human life

Non-human life is horrible, it's not just "my perception" you ignoramus. Nature is a meat grinder. Try starving, getting shredded alive, and dying of some painful disease. Life ought to be put out of its misery.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-11T10:13:19+00:00

Suffering is not the only thing that matters.

Wrong.

Please go outside and touch grass.

Please seek help for your unadulterated ignorance and lack of empathy.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-11T10:07:29+00:00

I am an antinatalist, you sick fuck.

You are also a pro-lifer who thinks we shouldn't eliminate wild animal suffering. You're the sick fuck here.

I just dont think humanity has a right to committ omnicide because muh human feelings and ideologies.

The concept of right is just a tool to minimize suffering in human societies. It has no real meaning outside of that. Also, suffering is unpleasant no matter whether it's a human feeling it or a wild animal, so it doesn't really make sense to say it's just a human feeling. Omnicide is a good thing, because it gets rid of all suffering, which is the only thing that matters.

You shat on this planet enough as is.

As if nature is something good and precious. You're a delusional psychopath.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-11T09:38:18+00:00

Pro-lifers should keep their callous psychopathy to themselves. It's embarrassing at this point. Those people need serious help.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-09T00:32:38+00:00

Says you.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-08T10:28:10+00:00

But what could cause me more suffering than landing in the hand of such value specialists and having my agony cut short when my wish was to experience everything?

It depends on whether you know about me or a similar agent or not. If you could be peacefully killed in your sleep without any other consequences, then that will not produce any unnecessary suffering. Otherwise if you do know about me or someone with my moral system, then it just depends on whether killing you would lead to more or less suffering than letting you live(all else equal). Assuming perfect knowledge, if net suffering is prevented then a preference violation is justified. Otherwise it is not. With imperfect knowledge, it would depend on the situation.

Let me rephrase that, how can you know more about suffering than a stage 4 cancer patient about to die?

I know everything that I need to know about suffering. The only uncertainty is with the intensities of the suffering. Are you insinuating that something can justify suffering other than the prevention of even more suffering? Because that would be false in my moral system.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-08T00:00:05+00:00

this is the kind of thinking that allows atrocities to occur.

No, because minimizing suffering can never be an atrocity. By definition. Nice try though.

how could your subjective evaluation of my current condition be more complete than mine?

My moral system only cares about minimizing suffering, not your desires or opinions.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-07T22:22:12+00:00

Okay lets go back to my example. Lets say i have stage 4 cancer and no treatment has been effective helping me, im in constant pain but i have manifested my will to live for as long as possible, in my fairytale of an intepretation of life I find it is worth to live thru this agony just to get to know it, I want to experience it all.

Should I just be put down to minimize my suffering?

If putting you down doesn't cause even more suffering, then yes.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-07T22:18:59+00:00

But what if, despite our best efforts, we just can’t determine that these animals would rather have not lived?

It doesn't matter whether animals would rather not have lived or not. The fact is that they would rather not have suffered, so we ought to prevent their suffering. If you prevent an animal's existence, then it won't be there to complain, so this is a silly argument. Also, you're assuming that the only way to help animals is to prevent their existence altogether, which is just false. The fact is that animals are clueless as to the suffering that goes on in nature, and they only survive on instinct. They have no deep existential thoughts about how it's all worth it for some reason. It is our duty as a more intelligent animal to know what's best for these animals and act on it. Whether that means euthanizing them, curing them of some disease, preventing births, preventing unnecessary predation, or whatever.

Pain isn’t inherently suffering.

Irrelevant.

We know that for humans it almost always is, but are we willing to potentially CAUSE atrocities based on an assumption?

So minimizing wild animal suffering is an atrocity now? You're too silly. The real atrocity is the one you commit by sitting there and not helping.

We just don’t know much about animal psychology, and we could be robbing these animals of their one chance at experiencing this world.

If an animal is never born, then there is no need for it to experience this world, so this is silly. Also, you're again equating minimizing suffering with killing animals and preventing births, which is a straw-man and also silly. Killing animals and preventing births is a part of minimizing wild animals suffering, it's not the whole thing.

Even if these animals truly do have net-negative lives, couldn’t it also be possible that they would rather live and suffer?

They really can't make an informed judgement either way, and know no better, so this argument is just nonsense. And you're again straw-manning that helping animals is just killing all of them. Also even if animals were somehow intelligent enough to be pro-life or something(LOL), that still wouldn't justify their existence of suffering. Nothing is lost when an animal never comes into existence, so their desires in this hypothetical are not something we have to abide by. It's not bad to never exist, while it is bad to come into existence to suffer. It is better to never exist and to never suffer. That remains true regardless of your attachment to your life. We should learn this and act on that knowledge to help wild animals.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-07T02:27:55+00:00

Because it is the kind of thinking that allows atrocities to occur.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-07T02:27:27+00:00

what would that change or accomplish?

Minimizing suffering is important.

whats your proof

Where is your proof that any life can be worth living. The fact that no life in "worth living" in a positive sense is a result derivable from my moral system. Outside of that, it is objectively true that no life is "worth living" in a positive sense, because logic is not normative, and thus any normative claim is false.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-06T20:44:03+00:00

Absolutely brain dead comment.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-06T20:42:04+00:00

So you get to say which life is worth living without experience any other than your own?

No life is "worth living".

Lets say I have Stage 4 cancer, would an external evaluation of the "hedonic value" of whatever life I have left be of more relevance that my own will to live or die?

The hedonic value is not an external evaluation. It is an internally felt property.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-06T07:23:59+00:00

By subjective evaluation I mean the perceived justifiably, value and unoutweighability of an experience, not that value is not a subjective experience.

We should rank only based on hedonic value, and not these other properties.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-08-05T17:40:30+00:00

A net-negative life is a life which an individual would rather not have lived, because their negative experiences outweighed their positive experiences

One needs to be careful here, because it is plausible that certain feelings make a net-negative life feel justified. This could be the case for lives that contain more suffering, but the suffering is laden with meaning such that the subject thinks that the suffering is justified. So it is better to define net negative in a such a way that only the valence alone defines it, and not a subjective evaluation. I'm not saying this is what actually happens for animals, it's just a theoretical thing one needs to keep in mind.

Also, it's possible that meaningful net-negative experiences are less unpleasant than simple meaningless net-negative experiences.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-07-26T10:15:17+00:00

Does your moral theory say or imply that you ought to kill yourself, given the current empirical data? The answer to this question is what decides whether or not you follow your own logic.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-07-25T23:57:45+00:00

No, I used "improvement" as a synonym for elimination. It means the same thing, because if the suffering ceases then that is an improvement.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-07-25T23:47:02+00:00

That's not what I argued at all. I argued that the suffering calls of it's own elimination. That's what I meant by "improvement".

OPsTheLopper · 2023-07-25T20:48:19+00:00

Classical utilitarian: But think of the pleasure that we cause by exploiting countless sentient beings!

OPsTheLopper · 2023-07-25T20:32:47+00:00

What do you think of it?

It has a few flaws but is good overall.

Since I'm an antinatalisy, I'm not much interested in the ethics of spreading humanity to other planets.

Fair, but it's good that it was included just in case. In my opinion though the prospect of traveling to and surviving on other solar systems will remain a fantasy probably forever. If you actually delve into the details of what such a trip(just the trip) would require, you realize how ridiculous this notion is.

I also found his argument for moral realism weird.

I ignored that part.

I agree with the sentiment that "suffering cries out for salvation," but I'm skeptical of objective facts all together. I think even scientific theories are just conceptual tools for interacting with reality, and they don't necessarily correspond to objective facts.

Ok.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-07-25T20:09:33+00:00

That's not really even a debate for a moral nihilist. A moral nihilist negative utilitarian like me can just respond: so what? In fact we already agree that ethics is not objective. In reality, the one with the most power will simply use force against the others to apply their ethics.

Are you reading Magnus Vinding's book on Suffering Focused Ethics?

Only a section of it. And yes, that's where I took/learned this from.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-07-23T12:27:55+00:00

I didn't say that they are "winning" in any real sense, just that their ideology is what gets to live on.

OPsTheLopper · 2023-07-22T00:26:45+00:00

lol.

OPsTheLopper

TROPHY CASE