I admit that my question is quite useless in terms of practical philosophy or ethics, but I came to wonder how ethics will be changed if the life of human beings or further, the life of every organisms were eternal. What I mean by "eternal" may not be so rigorous, but let's say that the body of organisms can be regenerated as soon as they get destroyed. Also, let's say that organisms do not die due to their age and also do not get any pain when they get injured physically.

Why I came to this kind of imagination is because I thought that contemporary moral rules or principles in normative ethics are hardly dependent on the death, pain, and things related with finite lifespan. Thus, I thought that moral principles will be changed enormously if there were some kind of possible world where the concept of "death" do not exist at all. However, if people have emotion, then I think some kind of moral principles related to emotions may still exist.

I wonder if philosophical argument to answer my question is possible or if there already exist some kind of related philosophical document. I have an intuition that this matter is somehow related to the problem of meta-ethics and moral realism but I cannot grasp how it can be related in detail. If my question lacks philosophical importance then any advice about how the question can be improved are of welcome.

  • I add the condition that there is nothing like scarcity of resources in this possible world. In other words, people can suffice their need as much as they can. Maybe it would be easy to imagine some kind of heaven which Christians mention. However, I think there still remains the problem which roots from the relationship between people. I have hardship in developing my ideas formally.
  • Ethics isn't my thing so I can't say that I remember any names or the context but I know that people have written a lot about how immorality affects ethics and I'm sure someone will post a good answer containing those references. What I would say, given the general attitude on this SE about more "open ended 'what if'" questions, I would suggest focusing your question on asking for specific arguments that have been given about this idea. Of course, you do explicitly do this, I am just giving some advice as to how, if at some point someone decides to close the question, you can reopen it.
    – Not_Here
    May 12, 2017 at 13:10
  • Tolkien made the elves ferocious in battle, and actually relatively bloodthirsty. Because elves can only die from physical injury. They are otherwise immortal. They see battle as thrilling. The closest thing they have to recognising their mortality.
    – Richard
    May 12, 2017 at 13:26
  • @Not_Here You mean "immorality" by "immortality". Thanks for your advice about how to write good question. I should search more about the topic but still I expect someone may give good answer to my question.
    – Senna
    May 12, 2017 at 13:27
  • Yes I mean immortality
    – Not_Here
    May 12, 2017 at 13:40
  • The question seems more related to science fiction than philosophy. Philosophy is difficult enough as it is, without need to have alternatives ready for plenty of "what if" scenarios.
    – tkruse
    Nov 28, 2020 at 7:47


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.