The hypothetical in the original version wasn't very precise, therefore I shall make another attempt.
Basically, much of the confusion originated from me having tried to ponder at least two separate issues at once and not having succeeded at all.
I shall therefore re-formulate these as separate problems.
In both cases, however, it is assumed that there is no such thing as an "absolute" moral and no "life after death", or any such thing either. The "mind" is assumed to strictly be a function of the body and nothing more. No reward or punishment to be received by a "supreme being" either.
Thus, I would also consider the opinions of dualists, deists... relevant for as long as they manage to stick to the above assumptions -> separating the argument from the person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) The "Orgasmicide" issue:
A drug is being offered to you with the following effect:
- It will, for a limited amount of time, cause you to experience pleasure and the complete absence of any discomfort to a degree that "ordinary" life, in comparison, would be perceived as "suffering".
- After that, you will die. This shall be completely painless, including that the drug will, of course, also eliminate your fear of death, your fear of abandoning loved ones... you will not experience any discomfort whatsoever!
Since the pleasure issue is already subject of the "v2.0" thread, I'm going to concentrate on the "death" aspect of it - meaning that the "v1.1" drug is definitely meant to shorten your life span. For the time being, the "pleasure" aspect is there to serve as an incentive for even bothering to begin with.
About the only kinds of situations I could think of where I would actually take that drug are situations where the alternative was an extended amount of severe discomfort (based on my non-drugged assessment of what constitutes "discomfort")
Likewise, most other people would also chose not to take the drug, except may be in circumstances resembling the above.
The question would be that, given all of the above:
Should the choice to not take that drug be considered rational?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.) The "Painless Extinction" issue:
Why exactly would the extinction of humanity be considered "bad"? (Mind, I'm not asserting it could be considered "good" either)
Provided, of course, that the process of extinction itself does not involve any actual harm done to any existing human (the v1.0 would not have made this clear, I admit, because the analogy was flawed). Circumstances can be conceived under which this may be possible, however.
Thus, the question is not aimed at the act of extinction, but rather at state of "being extinct", if that makes sense.
I personally hold that all other things being equal the idea of furthering humanity as a race has no moral merit.
This position is often met with moral outrage, even by some folks I would not have expected to respond in that way.
So, in the given context: Why is it bad if humans go extinct?
Basically, much of the confusion originated from me having tried to ponder at least two separate issues at once and not having succeeded at all.
I shall therefore re-formulate these as separate problems.
In both cases, however, it is assumed that there is no such thing as an "absolute" moral and no "life after death", or any such thing either. The "mind" is assumed to strictly be a function of the body and nothing more. No reward or punishment to be received by a "supreme being" either.
Thus, I would also consider the opinions of dualists, deists... relevant for as long as they manage to stick to the above assumptions -> separating the argument from the person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) The "Orgasmicide" issue:
A drug is being offered to you with the following effect:
- It will, for a limited amount of time, cause you to experience pleasure and the complete absence of any discomfort to a degree that "ordinary" life, in comparison, would be perceived as "suffering".
- After that, you will die. This shall be completely painless, including that the drug will, of course, also eliminate your fear of death, your fear of abandoning loved ones... you will not experience any discomfort whatsoever!
Since the pleasure issue is already subject of the "v2.0" thread, I'm going to concentrate on the "death" aspect of it - meaning that the "v1.1" drug is definitely meant to shorten your life span. For the time being, the "pleasure" aspect is there to serve as an incentive for even bothering to begin with.
About the only kinds of situations I could think of where I would actually take that drug are situations where the alternative was an extended amount of severe discomfort (based on my non-drugged assessment of what constitutes "discomfort")
Likewise, most other people would also chose not to take the drug, except may be in circumstances resembling the above.
The question would be that, given all of the above:
Should the choice to not take that drug be considered rational?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.) The "Painless Extinction" issue:
Why exactly would the extinction of humanity be considered "bad"? (Mind, I'm not asserting it could be considered "good" either)
Provided, of course, that the process of extinction itself does not involve any actual harm done to any existing human (the v1.0 would not have made this clear, I admit, because the analogy was flawed). Circumstances can be conceived under which this may be possible, however.
Thus, the question is not aimed at the act of extinction, but rather at state of "being extinct", if that makes sense.
I personally hold that all other things being equal the idea of furthering humanity as a race has no moral merit.
This position is often met with moral outrage, even by some folks I would not have expected to respond in that way.
So, in the given context: Why is it bad if humans go extinct?
