All the problems of the world could be solved. Hunger gone forever, the problems of fusion solved, cancer cured, niggers stop nigging, jews stop existing, all mankind can be happy forever and no one shall want for anything. In return, you are put away, isolated from the world, and tortured forever. No one shall know your name or sing your praises and you will suffer physically and mentally for all eternity, but in exchange mankind can flourish, happy and bountiful.
It could be said that you have a moral obligation to do this, after all, what is one person's suffering weighed against the happiness of all mankind?
Do you do it? Or are you really that selfish that you would put your own comfort ahead of everyone else?
Utilitarianism is untenable for reasons like this. This is no metric to quantify pleasure vs pain.
Daniel Richardson
fuck the world. i hate them for rejecting me and stepping on my dreams and the thought of them suffering makes me happy inside. >inb4 edgelord
Luke Butler
Naw fug dat.
Brody Reyes
I don't, because as a good utilitarian I recognize my infinite suffering is greater than the finite joy/lack of suffering of the rest of the world.
Gavin Cooper
Those who walk away from Omelas
Isaiah Cook
utopia=dystopia
Henry Ross
This
James Clark
Another thread Lit related thread
Jace Murphy
No reason to do such a thing. All morality is derived from self-benefit. You are deceiving yourself if you think you should make such a choice, believing that, as usual, your good deeds will lead to a reward, but they will not, and you will suffer forever. I would rather send everyone else to suffer for my benefit, so long as their suffering does not in any way harm me as a result.
Adrian Cruz
The premise is contradictory. If one man is eternally tortured, then "all the problems of the world" are not "solved" and "all mankind" is not "happy forever."
David Rodriguez
but what if you were in hell, and everyone else were in heaven? Would you choose eternal torment, then? WHy?
Caleb Foster
bait, dont respond
Jayden Gonzalez
what are those and why shouldn’t they be made?
Brandon Ramirez
I don't do it. Easiest choice of all time.
Joshua Rodriguez
You don't need one. You take a heuristic approach based upon metrics of averaged societal health, which are plentiful (actual outcomes, no need to rely on self-reporting).
This is an extreme hypothetical; it isn't relevant to the validity of a pragmatic moral system. Even if it were, the eternal suffering of one vs. the eternal fufillment of billions seems pretty easy to to quantify (we can assume the absence of a great deal more pain among the billions than will be suffered by the one).
Brayden Morris
what if a massive alien species wanted to rape our planet for resources, killing and enslaving us in the process? Suppose the overall happiness of the universe would increase, preserving these billions of advanced beings, but we would still suffer. Would you allow it in the name of utilitarianism? Why should we even be utilitarians, if not solely for self-benefit as a result of the flourishing of the community?
Christian Sullivan
Suffering makes things interesting, so no. If I did do it there'll probably be a massive spike in suicides and the monkeys will find something new to complain about
Cameron Baker
Your whole dilemma is wrong. Making either choice will never be moral as being moral also addresses YOU, not just your actions towards others, but even your own actions towards yourself! If you are not included in the set of people that will benefit from such action, you are not treating yourself as an end in yourself, you would be treating yourself as a mere means to the ends of others.
If anything, you're amoral for even positing such a false and warped dilemma that disallows us to consider ourselves ALONG with everyone else as an end. Fuck you, OP.
Kevin Davis
It isn't even a question. No. Absolutely not. Nor would I subject my worst enemy to such a fate. Nor would I permit even the bravest of souls to accept it even if he were willing. I do not see even a micron of ambiguity here. It is not the place of man to shoulder the burden of damnation for the salvation of man and it must not and cannot be. The idea must not and cannot even be countenanced.
Suicide cord. People sometimes use them for things like transferring power from a generator to a house. There's a reason power outlets don't have the live as a sticking out prong: safety.
Ryan Williams
>Utilitarianism is untenable for reasons like this. P much every theory of utilitarianism excludes situations like this from its purview.
Brody Rodriguez
>jews when will this conspiracy theory die out?
literal degeneration
Xavier Nguyen
I think I have a moral obligation, but I wouldn't do it.
Also, in effect, my world ends with me. My entire experience of reality is filtered through my senses, my ideological lens and my cognitive interpretation. That is the universe from my perspective.
A reality in which I am suffering and noone else is, is effectively a reality in which only suffering.
I wouldn't do it, or subject any else to this fate.
Suppose there is no Christian God >happiness on earth is pleasant yet finite, ending when either humanity ends or the universe burns out = Finite Goodness for my Infinite Suffering = Cosmic injustice
Ryan Perry
the heat death of the universe will eliminate all suffering eventually, so no
