Preserve humanity despite suffering or no?

[Nova Andromeda]

-Q decides he's bored and wants to play with humanity once again. He takes you to some nice place with a "BIG RED BUTTON" (hereafter Reddy). Reddy will immediately end the lives of every human if pushed. Their deaths will be entirely painless. You will only be allowed to push Reddy if you are able give a rational reason for doing so.

-Q tells you he is interested in how humans make big ethical decisions. Next, Q attempts to educate you about a certain matter (assuming you don't immediately provide a rational reason to push Reddy and then carry through and push him). According to him, humanity causes far more pain and sufferring than it produces in pleasure, fulfillment, etc. This only includes human pain, sufferring, pleasure, etc. (e.g., the suffering of cattle at the hands of humans isn't considered). He says the major reason this isn't immediately obvious to everyone is due to the fact that people tend to forget and discount bad experiences while always looking back at the "good old days." In addition, the dominance of suffering (etc.) will remain true into the forseeable future for humanity.
-Q then provides you with everything you need to verify what he says (including instantaneous travel to anywhere on Earth, time travel, immorality, information, equipment, answers to relevent questions, etc.). However, you must be diligently trying to determine whether what Q says is true. Failure in such diligence will result in lots and lots of pain. What Q has told you is, in fact, true, but you can't be sure of this without doing the investigation he suggests. After Q has laid out the ground rules for you he says you can decide to NOT push Reddy whenever you like for any reason. Should you decide to not push Reddy it will be as though your encounter with Q never happened at all and you and humanity will carry on without alteration.

-Do you attempt to push Reddy and if so what reason do you provide?
-If you decide not to push Reddy do you have a reason? If so, what is it?

[Darth Tanner]

I don't push 'Reddy'

Any emotional pain of living and failure is only temporary, most people get over it. People who don't and wish to commit suicide are usually transferred to a mental institute and for good reason.

Also what gives you the right to make the decision of life or death for the entire species based on your analysis of the pain to pleasure ratio.

However if Q is letting me travel freely in time and space to investigate this I'll at least fake interest for the means of spending a few years exploring history and the universe in the guise of analysing the pain to pleasure ration.

[Starglider]

In case anyone missed the thread in Testing that rated this dilemma as FAIL, my response was;

This is an idiotic scenario that bears no resemblance to either reality or any sane moral system. Maybe it would be useful if the button did nothing, as it could be used to detect fucked-up hardcore nihilists with dangerously broken definitions of 'enjoyment', 'misery' and 'suffering'. Base utility functions are always arbitrary, regardless of whether they are specified by godlike beings or 5 year olds, but anyone with an effective composite preference function* resembling what you're suggesting has no business being part of the human race. A somewhat more sensible (i.e. specific) version of this dilemma:

'Q shows you that an afterlife exists. After they die each human spends one thousand years in one of two places; a 'heaven' where there is no pain or suffering, every material want is fulfilled, every possibility for self-improvement is available and people are all excellent to each other, and a 'hell' where each human is brutally tortured in every conceivable physical and mental way, constantly healing and being hurt again for an entire millenia before they finally die. Unfortunately the assignment of who goes where is entirely random. Q gives you the option of abolishing this system, and having humans just cease to exist when they die. This might be a delusion or a trick, but if it is what you say doesn't matter, so you might as well act like it's true. What percentage of humans have to end up in the hell dimension before you'll take the deal?'

Interpreted in the way you seemed to imply, which is at total odds with reality and common sense, your dilemma is roughly equivalent to this one at '100% of humans go to hell'. I think anyone sensible would say 'yes, abolish hell'. Obviously if the percentage going to hell is 0% no-one sane would say 'yes, abolish heaven'. You'll probably get a range of other threshold percentages, but I'm not sure this actually tells you much.

* 'Composite preference function' is an AGI/decision theory term; a local preference function is an ordering over a set of choices (of actions or outcomes) in a particular context, an entity's composite preference function is just all of those local preference functions combined (presumably with redundancy in the definition removed). Expected utility is particularly useful class of preference functions that are globally transitive and consistent.

[wolveraptor]

Is there really anyone who would honestly make the decision to push the button, even if they found a skewed pain:pleasure ration in favor of the former? Obviously, the vast majority of humanity considers the pain:pleasure ratio to be completely acceptable, and no one has the right to decide otherwise for them.

[Mr. T]

This question is retarded. No, I'm not going to push the button because bad times outweighing good times is not sufficient justification for extinction of an entire species. Would the average person choose suicide over having a few more bad days in their life then they did good days? I think not.

[Enforcer Talen]

It could be a dystopia and I wouldnt push the button. Humanity must survive.

[Cao Cao]

The dilemma assumes that humans are there for the purpose of achieving an acceptable pain-pleasure ratio.
This just isn't the case. And hell, everybody - and I mean everybody is going to make bad decisions that hurt them and others at some point. It's just how it is. They'll also make good decisions. There are good people and bad people and nothing's ever going to change that.

In the end, who is anyone to judge our entire species based on this? No. I wouldn't be pressing any buttons.

[Singular Intellect]

Can we ask Q to let us keep the button and use it to blackmail humanity into giving us enormous wealth and power?

[Invictus ChiKen]

Just last night I was looking over things in my life.

Here's how I see it, from what I can tell my life is fucked by very secular standard. But the way I see it, as long as I am breathing there is ALWAYS a chance things will improve. (Call my an optomist but I really think if we can get the Dems in the White House come this election, happy days will be hear again!).

So nope I no push the button.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

The ethics of the scenario are flawed.

I do not initiate Third Impact.

[Surlethe]

No. I'm not depressed enough to commit suicide.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Okay I KNOW I don't have the authorty to ask this but...

WHO THE FLYING FUCK VOTED YES! I DEMAND YOU SHOW YOURSELF YOU GENOCIDAL DOUCHE!

[Nova Andromeda]

-I don't have the time to respond to everything everyone has posted.


-Darth Tanner: If you don't trust your own judgement you could always consult other people. Q won't let this interfer with humanity's future. In addition, I find it odd that you support forcing people to live, but not to die.

-Starglider: You can make all the claims you want, but your authority doesn't make them so. This isn't a suggested method for deciding our species fate either. Your suggested scenario don't interest me since it doesn't force people question the existance of their species. You should also ditch the jargon. It only gets in the way.

-wolveraptor: The actual ratio of pleasure to misery isn't specified. It is specified that people have a very squewed idea of what it really is (this doesn't necessarily conform to reality of course). The best you can say is that people are happy about being ignorant of their condition. They cannot make rational decisions (ethical or otherwise) on topics that involve things they are ignorant of.

-Mr. T: "A few more bad days" has nothing to do with the scenario. According to you, all of humanity could be in hell and you still wouldn't end their misery.

-Enforcer Talen: You have failed to provide any reason for the continued existance of humanity in the face of a clear reason to end it.

-Cao Cao: Reread the scenario. You can provide any reason you like for preserving humanity. However, this is SLAM and you'll need to back it up.

-Bubble Boy: Take your spam to testing.

-Invictus ChiKen: You propose nothing more than wishful thinking. Surely you can do better.

-Spanky: Your personal authority doesn't count for shit.

-Surlethe: You have the opportunity to provide a ethical reason for not pushing Reddy. Instead, you have decided to ignore that option. That's called immoral.

[Lord Zentei]

Shit. The question in the poll is the opposite of the question in the thread title.

BAD FORM!

Make that one vote less for pushing "Reddy" and one more for not pushing it.



Because seriously, this scenario is fucking retarded.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

-Spanky: Your personal authority doesn't count for shit.

Excuse me, personal authority what? Go blow it out your ass.

In the scenario I'm well within my right to decide that I don't want to kill off the entire human race just because we have the potential to be mean and cruel and inflict pain and suffering on each other: to decide such would be taking a personal authority. I simply don't want to do something based on what I see to be both unethical and ethically flawed (never mind that I feel the assessment that people cause each other more pain than pleasure to be false).

My reason for refusing to push the button is because I feel that the fate of the entire human race should not depend on the judgment of an individual member, becuase THAT would be taking a personal authority.

[Cao Cao]

-Cao Cao: Reread the scenario. You can provide any reason you like for preserving humanity. However, this is SLAM and you'll need to back it up.

Back up what? Your dilemma is invalid. It is invalid because it assumes certain things about the human condition that aren't true.
Nobody has the right to judge humanity as a whole. Especially not when based on such an unfair analysis. That's the only reason I need to give.

[Surlethe]

-Surlethe: You have the opportunity to provide a ethical reason for not pushing Reddy. Instead, you have decided to ignore that option. That's called immoral.

If you insist, since the option of pushing the red button is effectively equivalent to me killing myself, you are asking me to give a reason for committing suicide. I have no reason to commit suicide; therefore, I don't push the button. Put more succinctly, self-preservation is the key here, especially since we're talking about not only me killing myself but also killing my family, friends, girlfriend -- everyone I love.

[Starglider]

In addition, I find it odd that you support forcing people to live, but not to die.

He's not 'forcing people to live' you fuckwit, he merely noted that suicidal tendencies are often the result of mental illness, and people are usually grateful for being treated once they've gotten over it. Nowhere did he say 'I deny sane, determined people the right to commit suicide'.

Your suggested scenario don't interest me since it doesn't force people question the existance of their species.

Neither does your idiot scenario because it's completely incompatible with reality. Life is not torture, in my or 99.9999% of humanity's opinion, ignoring that is both immoral and fucking stupid. In some bizarre parallel universe where this actually makes sense, you should still show every human the damn 'evidence' and let them commit suicide individually/not have children if they want to.

You should also ditch the jargon. It only gets in the way.

Yeah, I hear that from philosophers a lot when we demand that they define their notions about morality in terms of something objective and testable.

"A few more bad days" has nothing to do with the scenario.

He's just mentally rejecting the sheer stupidity of it and translating it into something that makes sense.

You have failed to provide any reason for the continued existance of humanity in the face of a clear reason to end it.

He's provided a perfectly valid reason (an axiom, likely) in the context of his own moral system. It just doesn't agree with yours (or mine, but the mismatch isn't likely to bother me in any real world situation). If you start spouting objective morality bullshit at this point the amusement value of this thread will crank up another north.

Reread the scenario. You can provide any reason you like for preserving humanity. However, this is SLAM and you'll need to back it up.

'Waah, waah, people are rejecting my idiocy as nonsensical and substituting something that makes some kind of sense!'

Invictus ChiKen: You propose nothing more than wishful thinking.

Ditto. You back up your scenario by specifying how it is actually possible for life to be hell without anyone realising it, and how whatever hidden reality you've defined is more important than what everyone believes they experience.

Your personal authority doesn't count for shit.

What is the fucking point of the question if people can't make personal decisions about whether to press the button? What do you expect them to do, freeze and say 'I can't decide, I have no authority, I can't decide...'. Isn't that functionally equivalent to not pressing the button?

[Lord Zentei]

Okay I KNOW I don't have the authorty to ask this but...

WHO THE FLYING FUCK VOTED YES! I DEMAND YOU SHOW YOURSELF YOU GENOCIDAL DOUCHE!

I think the first yes was the thread starter.

The second was me clicking the wrong option.

[Cao Cao]

The way I see it, the main problem is that there is no benchmark to analyze humanity with. Who are we going to compare ourselves to? Non-sentient species? Who's right is it to say what the "acceptable" ratio of pain and happiness is?
This is verging on the religious, really.

If given such a choice, we would have to base the decision on our own personal morals and feelings. And those tell me I'm not going to be wiping out humanity any time soon. Nova's turned this from a decision into an exercise in justifying humanity's existance.

[Starglider]

This is verging on the religious, really.

Of course. Claims that (a) there is an objectively correct, one true morality and (b) that they are already practicing it are standard operating procedure for religious people. Believers in any of the mainstream religions would say 'no' because suicide is a sin, life is sacred, God made humans like that so it must be good, they have no right to tamper with the natural order/God's creation etc etc. In this case an example of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

[Sea Skimmer]

If I decided I could make the choice to push the button I’d be about 500 times worse then Hitler, this is just a really stupid question.

[Enforcer Talen]

-I don't have the time to respond to everything everyone has posted.

-Enforcer Talen: You have failed to provide any reason for the continued existance of humanity in the face of a clear reason to end it.

Yeah, no. There is no reason to end humanity. "Because they are in pain"? Are you serious? Life is hard, but each generation makes it a little bit easier for the next one. 5,000 generations of fingerail scratchign up the ladder of life has allowed you the opportunity to say we should take the bullet cuz life isnt paradise.

Get the hell out.

[Jadeite]

Nova demanding people give "valid reasons" for not pressing the button is pretty amusing considering his own scenario includes:

"After Q has laid out the ground rules for you he says you can decide to NOT push Reddy whenever you like for any reason."

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Killing off all of humanity does have roots in a particular ethical view: that is extreme classical utilitarianism. I am not saying I agree with it, but it's been brought up before. This issue expresses one of myriad problems with an extreme form of classical Utilitarianism. This seems to be the version he's using when he constructs the OP.

1. Extreme Classical Utilitarianism is a maximization/minimization philosophy of ethics that only looks at the consequences of action, inaction, and existence. This means the focus is entirely on pain-pleasure or happiness-suffering. Specifically, you try to maximize happiness and pleasure while minimizing suffering and pain in any given situation. Something is seen as "good" and "should stay around" if and only if there is more of X than Y (X being pleasure/happiness and Y pain/suffering).

2. This version doesn't differentiate between the internal states of one individual (his happiness and unhappiness caused either to himself or by others) and that which he causes to others. They all try to use the same metric, so even if you cause yourself unintended pain, that counts as much as you causing intentional or unintentional pain to another person. The only thing that matters is whether or not you cause more pain or more pleasure. According to a strict classical Utilitarian view, you can be immoral even if you are harming no one but yourself, unless of course, pain is your pleasure.

3. Utilitarianism is aggregative. This means that individual cases themselves don't matter. It's the net calculation. So even if you have several goods, it might not, as a whole, lead up to something good, just as if you had several bads, it might not equal a net bad.

4. This version of Utilitarianism isn't Preference Utilitarianism. It often ignores personal preferences and tries to go for a neutral "point of view of the universe" metric which it assumes exists independently. For example, say you could have lived 30 years and at the end, be happy then. To decide whether or not you life is worth living can, under the classical util assumption, be done by anyone in possession of the facts. Utilitarianism then requires the "neutral, detached" analysis. If you had magic godlike powers that let you calculate your life as if it were a ledger system, you would go through life with goals, desires and experiences. For goals met, you check a util. For goals not met, you check a delor. For every good experience, you mark down a util. For every bad one, a delor. Assuming they are all the same or of relative intensity, an outsider could simply calculate up the delors and utils (aggregate them) as you could your own life. Given that the quantity of X is greater than or less than Y would lead to the ethical conclusion. In a way, classical utilitarianism can lead to you having a life not worth living, even if you, at the moment, disagree! Which I find a bit humorous, if not macabre. Classical Util is a reduction to a type of ethinomics.

As for his situation, it really does seem to mimic the logic of extreme classical utilitarianism. I gather he's saying you have the option to kill or not kill all of Humanity based on the assumption that people living leads to more net suffering than people not living. This assumes a calculation of costs/benefits of life based strictly on the pain/pleasure ratio of aggregating hypothetical delors and utils. If we assume he means this suffering is caused to people by others and by people to themselves (but is unwanted), the extreme classical version (or even an extreme negative version would imply one is required to off humanity if that's the only solution to balance or strike the ledger in favour of net utils.

In the OP, we are dealing with both (harm caused to the self and to others). He's assuming that humans cause more pain to others and to themselves by living than if they didn't live at all. Given that "knowledge" that human existence has a negative balance on the ledger, it's existence falls into the negative, which means it's bad to live by classical utilitarian calculations. Utilitarianism says off humanity. It's unpalatable, yes, but that's the theory of Extreme Classical Utilitarianism. The only thing that matters for the survival or non-survival of humanity is whether or not there is more pleasure/happiness in living. If by living, you consistently, as a whole species, bring about a greater amount of harm than good, then you should be eliminated on that metric, given that doing so doesn't cause even more harm to others than would exist if you continued existing. In practice, I don't see anyone knowing that or that even being practically feasible.

I don't subscribe to that view. I think a more appropriate version would be the modern synthesis of preference and classical utilitarianism which allows for individual preferences. If dealing with individuals who are causing pain to themselves or having pain caused to them by others, whether or not they should live and die would better, and more ethically be served through statistical analysis of the average human life or by some sort of utility survey of the people you want to kill. I wouldn't ignore the genuine life preferences of the people whom I am killing (e.g. kill everyone, regardless if everyone wants to die).

There is one problem however: when do you follow the ratio? We often to that today in Utilitarian bioethics when we talk of infanticide and and non-voluntary euthanasia (dealing with non-cogent people who cannot choose for themselves: infants or fetuses or the vegetative). Today, we do kill infants or fetuses if they are horribly deformed or injured and will likely have a shitty quality of life (or die soon after horrible experiences). In other cases, we make the point that the vegetative person has no experiences, so the net value of the life is nil. Then we return to the original classical utilitarian cost-benefit quality of life ratio. So it's not entirely done away with in the modern system. It's important and used. The issue is when do you use it. I would not use it in cases such as the OP wherein you are killing people who don't want to die because harm is being done TO THEM that they actually don't value more life itself.

Essentially, it seems like by pressing the red button, you are ignoring the actual preferences of the people you are killing and killing them regardless of whether or not they want to die because YOU calculate their lives to be worth less than they value their own lives. That seems bizarre.

This doesn't mean that you cannot kill anyone if they don't want to die. Some people might not want to die, but need to die to save others who also don't want to die. You certainly can under even the modern form of Utility theory. For example, if Bob is killing people, and the only way to get him to stop is to kill him first, then you can do so whether or not he wants to die as a cogent being. You are also preventing more objective bodily harm and maintaining the ratio system, but respecting the personal preferences (valuation) of the lives of all involved.