Timeline for Assuming you could end all life on earth in a splitsecond. Would it still be immoral to do it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1, 2023 at 17:21 | comment | added | random_user | I love these dilemmas and metaphors, they make you think. Some interesting variations: Trolley Problem, Lifeboat. I also recommend looking at this closely related SEP article: Doing vs. Allowing Harm | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 12:07 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 4, 2023 at 18:40 | |||||
| Mar 1, 2023 at 11:34 | comment | added | Hudjefa | We don't have to get our knickers in a twist over a matter that seems easily settled by a survey; of course this'll be on a global scale. | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 9:06 | answer | added | Professor Sushing | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 1, 2023 at 3:47 | answer | added | Futilitarian | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 28, 2023 at 22:13 | answer | added | john callan | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 31, 2014 at 4:12 | comment | added | dgo | He could just not kill himself - seeing as this seems like it would cause the least suffering outside of his own head. | |
| Jul 5, 2013 at 8:47 | comment | added | Bryan Ruiz | Perhaps when one does kill himself, he indeed ends the lives of everything in the world that exists. | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 13:58 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/347715005648617473 | ||
| Jun 19, 2013 at 22:43 | comment | added | Dennis | @basilikum I think that the question is fine as is, as long as you're not framing it as a poll of people's opinions (so forget about that comment a few comments up). I think it is on the answerers to breakdown what schools of thought or what presuppositions would be relevant to this question. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 22:41 | comment | added | Dennis | I'm with @commando here. This is no different than the trolley problem or a similar ethical dilemma. Putting the weight on the OP to specify a school or presuppositions I think is to generate unnecessary friction. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 22:40 | comment | added | basilikum | @Lukas It's alright. But one question: do you think I should edit the question and add my own views on this or should I leave it the way it is now that it's been asked anyway? | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 19:43 | answer | added | Rex Kerr | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 17:18 | comment | added | Lukas | " and I still would like to hear the opinion of others about this."... I think thats the crucial point. We have a chat though, which might be better suited for such open, discussion-style question. Sorry if i sounded rude | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 17:12 | comment | added | commando | I don't think this question deserves to be downvoted simply because it does not specify a school or morality. We have plenty of ethics questions here that are open-ended in this way, and that merely invites better answers that summarize the replies of multiple major schools. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 16:14 | comment | added | basilikum | @Lukas well yes, I have presuppositions. But it's a philosophical question and I don't see how you can ask such a question without having thought about it. But I don't expect my views on this to be the right ones and I still would like to hear the opinion of others about this. Well I know that Stack is not a discussion platform so maybe this question would have made more sense somewhere else. But than again, I thought philosophical questions can't be answered correctly anyway so I gave it a shot. But I'm honestly sorry if I was mistaken. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 15:48 | comment | added | Lukas | +1 for Neil Meyer, -1 for this question. At least include your presuppositions, and as it looks like, adding them answers your own question (at least partly). | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 15:30 | comment | added | basilikum | @NeilMeyer ok, if you hold on to an absolute morality and believe that morality exists without humans, than you have a point. But if you think that the idea of morality derives from humans, wouldn't it die with the extinction of humanity? So no matter what ideas someone has of "moral" and "immoral", if everyone ceases to exist, wouldn't it become irrelevant? | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 15:07 | comment | added | Neil Meyer | Depends on what morality you hold to. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 14:21 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 19, 2013 at 16:05 | |||||
| Jun 19, 2013 at 14:20 | comment | added | basilikum | @commando yes, that's probably a nice way to boil it down. But still, I think there is more to it. And yes, theoretically it wouldn't harm to keep isolated groups alive. But would it make a moral difference if he kills them anyway because lets say his machine cannot be adjusted to such an individual level? | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 14:07 | comment | added | commando | Maybe what this boils down to is whether life is inherently good or not. There are some interesting arguments for both sides. As a note: obviously he could just kill everything except those people and animals that have been isolated from civilization and still cause no suffering. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 14:01 | history | asked | basilikum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |