Moral dilemma on the 5th of July (hypothetical)...

[Alyeska]

That guy almost certainly wouldn't deserve such a fate. But I'm a greedy bugger and my morals only go so far. Let the guy burn, I want to live along with the rest of my family and friends.

[Spyder]

Fuck no I wouldn't do it. No one deserves that, especially not just to postpone the inevitable for several billion years.

Are you totally against all medical technology as well?

[Lone_Prodigy]

That guy almost certainly wouldn't deserve such a fate. But I'm a greedy bugger and my morals only go so far. Let the guy burn, I want to live along with the rest of my family and friends.

I chose him, because while he would feel the pain his mind would be locked into a feedback-loop of denial– the more pain, the more he would scream "Hahahha!!! Is that the best you can do? I feel nothing!".

[Lord Zentei]

Fuck no I wouldn't do it. No one deserves that, especially not just to postpone the inevitable for several billion years.

Does the totality of all life in the Universe "deserve" to die off because of one guy?

[Zero]

Fuck no I wouldn't do it. No one deserves that, especially not just to postpone the inevitable for several billion years.

Are you totally against all medical technology as well?

Who's sacrificed for the use of medical technology? Would you kill another to save your own life?

[Keevan_Colton]

Fuck no I wouldn't do it. No one deserves that, especially not just to postpone the inevitable for several billion years.

You have 2 options...everyone and everything is destroyed or a single sentience suffers and as you point out, not even eternally, as it's just for the duration of the universe...come heat death he gets let off...

[The Guid]

I think I would probably go for the death route. There are things much worse than death, and this poor schmuk suffering all the misery in the Universe is easily one of them.

[Keevan_Colton]

I think I would probably go for the death route. There are things much worse than death, and this poor schmuk suffering all the misery in the Universe is easily one of them.

Death for every one and everything?
It isnt just for you, it's the sum total of all physical existence.

[Darth Raptor]

Are you totally against all medical technology as well?

What?

Does the totality of all life in the Universe "deserve" to die off because of one guy?

Of course not, but the dilemma is to choose the less reprehensible option. There are far worse things than death: Such as being tortured mercilessly for billions of years. This person would give anything to die after a few minutes of that. Is that really worth staving off what's going to happen regardless?

You have 2 options...everyone and everything is destroyed or a single sentience suffers and as you point out, not even eternally, as it's just for the duration of the universe...come heat death he gets let off...

Everyone and everything is destroyed early (and possibly more pleasantly than they would be otherwise) or a single sentience suffers for "only" billions of years. Would you do it? Would you suffer for billions of years to have it be in vain once it's all over? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[wilfulton]

hell is real: here's proof

[Hawkwings]

everyone's gonna die anyways, you know...

Torture for billions of years is just horrible. Heck, being alive for billions of years is horrible by itself.

BTW, how does everything in the universe "cease to exist"? Do we all just go "pop" and are gone?

...and for all you greedy buggers out there...

plenty of time to make this decision

so why not delay until you're on your deathbed, *then* choose the end of universe option?

[Junghalli]

Of course not, but the dilemma is to choose the less reprehensible option. There are far worse things than death: Such as being tortured mercilessly for billions of years. This person would give anything to die after a few minutes of that.

I hate to sound like a Commie but this is where we bring in something called the greater good. The suffering of one man is worth saving the lives of the six billion other men on this planet, and possibly the lives of Heaven alone knows how many quadrillions of sapients in the rest of the universe. Shit, if it came right down to it I'd volunteer to be the guy to be eternally tortured, and if you ask me anybody who wouldn't do likewise to save the whole universe is one callous fuck. How can you seriously say that the suffering of one man is more horrible than the death of the entire fucking universe? Really, how is this even a dilemma?

Is that really worth staving off what's going to happen regardless?

You're saying that because we're all going to die eventually this somehow makes the total extinction of intelligent life everywhere less horrible... why exactly? If the fact that life is temporary makes it valueless why don't we just all off ourselves right now? Survival is only "prolonging the inevitable" right?

Everyone and everything is destroyed early (and possibly more pleasantly than they would be otherwise) or a single sentience suffers for "only" billions of years.

So if I were to jump out of my window right now it really wouldn't be so bad because I'm only dying "early" and possibly more pleasantly than I would otherwise? After all, I'm going to die anyway, what's so horrible about loosing sixty or so years? You do see how this logic is somewhat faulty, to put it rather charitably.

Would you do it? Would you suffer for billions of years to have it be in vain once it's all over?

To save six billion other people on Earth, and who knows how many more on other planets? Fuck yeah I would. It wouldn't even be difficult. That's not to say that I like the idea of being tortured for billions of years, but frankly condeming the entire universe to death to save yourself from personal suffering would IMHO have to be the most self-centered act of all history.

[Spyder]

Are you totally against all medical technology as well?

What?

It's expensive and only postpones the inevitable. We could be putting all the effort that we are into medical technology into devices that could be used to ease people's suffering i.e. end their miserable lives. You want to waste all this money on medicine just so we can postpone the end of their miserable existances? You bastard!

[Surlethe]

everyone's gonna die anyways, you know...

So may I shoot you now? It's not wrong because you're going to die anyway, right?

Torture for billions of years is just horrible. Heck, being alive for billions of years is horrible by itself.

And the loss of definitely billions and most likely uncounted trillions isn't?

[Braedley]

everyone's gonna die anyways, you know...

Torture for billions of years is just horrible. Heck, being alive for billions of years is horrible by itself.

BTW, how does everything in the universe "cease to exist"? Do we all just go "pop" and are gone?

...and for all you greedy buggers out there...

plenty of time to make this decision

so why not delay until you're on your deathbed, *then* choose the end of universe option?

That's the most selfish thing I've ever heard. Just because you're gonna die in the next 5 minutes means you're gonna doom several trillion trillion lives (the true number is probably several magnitudes larger, but we'll never know for sure)?
Remember, it's not just Earth we're talking about, it's all life in the universe.

On the bright side, at least one of the infinite quantum realities is ought to servive because some selfish bastard didn't doom them.

[Darth Raptor]

I hate to sound like a Commie but this is where we bring in something called the greater good. The suffering of one man is worth saving the lives of the six billion other men on this planet, and possibly the lives of Heaven alone knows how many quadrillions of sapients in the rest of the universe. Shit, if it came right down to it I'd volunteer to be the guy to be eternally tortured, and if you ask me anybody who wouldn't do likewise to save the whole universe is one callous fuck. How can you seriously say that the suffering of one man is more horrible than the death of the entire fucking universe? Really, how is this even a dilemma?

It's a dilema because the universe is going to die anyway and you're only delaying it by inflicting infinite suffering on a single being. It's great that you can say you'd be tortured for billions of years so this universe can keep going through the motions. I wouldn't put any money on you maintaining that resolve during minute five, let alone year three billion and five.

To put it in an analogy you might understand. Let's say a group of people are on a lift that's slowly being lowered into say... magma. There is no possible escape. Now, let's say that someone came along and threatened to drop the lift instantly to the bottom unless one of the victims has white-hot pokers stuck in his eyes. This won't stop the lift, it just won't fall instantly. What's the point?

You're saying that because we're all going to die eventually this somehow makes the total extinction of intelligent life everywhere less horrible... why exactly? If the fact that life is temporary makes it valueless why don't we just all off ourselves right now? Survival is only "prolonging the inevitable" right?

No, I'm saying because the total extinction of all intelligent life is going to happen anyway (I'm not talking about individual death, in case you don't know) I'm going to opt for the choice that causes the least suffering. The end result is entirely the same. Now, if this being's suffering were able to somehow sustain the universe once it reaches the breaking point entropy-wise, that would be a different story. The OP said no such thing.

So if I were to jump out of my window right now it really wouldn't be so bad because I'm only dying "early" and possibly more pleasantly than I would otherwise? After all, I'm going to die anyway, what's so horrible about loosing sixty or so years? You do see how this logic is somewhat faulty, to put it rather charitably.

Well, what are you waiting for? If you're wanting me to tell you there's some greater purpose to life than the amoral function of experience you're barking up the wrong tree. Logically speaking, there's absolutely no reason to extend your life, and the only thing that makes you want to do so is the nature of the process that got you here in the first place. It's not my perrogative to decide if other people should end their lives. That decision is yours and yours alone, but I can't give you any reason not to.

Again, as clarification: This scenario is forcing me to chose between two options that have the exact same outcome. I'm merely going with the one that's less painful. For everyone.

To save six billion other people on Earth, and who knows how many more on other planets? Fuck yeah I would. It wouldn't even be difficult. That's not to say that I like the idea of being tortured for billions of years, but frankly condeming the entire universe to death to save yourself from personal suffering would IMHO have to be the most self-centered act of all history.

Either you're full of shit or you have absolutely no concept of time. Torture for billions of years (nevermind the "eternity" you seem to believe in) is an unfathomable fate that absolutely no one in all of history is worthy of. I wouldn't wish it on Hitler, Stalin or the BTK killer. I certainly wouldn't go through it myself, especially if it didn't change anything at the end of the game.

It's expensive and only postpones the inevitable. We could be putting all the effort that we are into medical technology into devices that could be used to ease people's suffering i.e. end their miserable lives. You want to waste all this money on medicine just so we can postpone the end of their miserable existances? You bastard!

False analogy. Individual death and collective death are two entirely different things. The species as a whole may be doomed, but that's not to say we shouldn't do everything we can to make the specimen's life as long and free of pain as he or she would like it (limited to the realm of possibility, of course). Any such dilemma would involve chosing between two options wherein the end result is not the same. Try again.

[Surlethe]

Again, as clarification: This scenario is forcing me to chose between two options that have the exact same outcome. I'm merely going with the one that's less painful. For everyone.

I'm calling bullshit on this. They do not have the exact same outcome. One outcome lasts several trillion years longer than the other, and is uncounted sentient lives larger.

[Darth Raptor]

I'm calling bullshit on this. They do not have the exact same outcome. One outcome lasts several trillion years longer than the other, and is uncounted sentient lives larger.

I went over this already. Either:

a) Everyone dies with minimal suffering.

or

b) Everyone dies with oodles of additional suffering, plus infinate suffering for one poor schmuck.

[Surlethe]

I went over this already. Either:

a) Everyone dies with minimal suffering.

or

b) Everyone dies with oodles of additional suffering, plus infinate suffering for one poor schmuck.

And you justify the assumption life = suffering...how, again?

[Darth Raptor]

And you justify the assumption life = suffering...how, again?

Maybe because suffering was a stipulation of extended life as per the OP?

[Darth Yoshi]

Not to nitpick, but aren't you making assumptions here? For all you know, everyone in the universe gets to suffer in Hell for a couple hundred years before they actually die. It's never specified in the OP how everyone dies, just that it'll be an act of God.

[Surlethe]

And you justify the assumption life = suffering...how, again?

Maybe because suffering was a stipulation of extended life as per the OP?

Let's see...

--Via an act of god all life in the universe will cease to exist. However, this can be prevented by [insert technobable solution] which will result in 1 intelligent and sentient entity suffering as much as pain and misery as possible (the exact amount varies, but it is >> 0) for the entire duration of life in the universe. The pain and misery of the selecty is << than the net pleasure and happiness of life in the universe (think absolute values if you confused). There are no volunteers in the entire universe because [insert unreasonable plot device #1] and the poor bastard choosen will not go willingly. The good news is that there is plenty of time to make this decision and it will have no impact on you since [insert unreasonable plot device # 2]. The bad news is that you have to make said decision.

[Darth Raptor]

Not to nitpick, but aren't you making assumptions here? For all you know, everyone in the universe gets to suffer in Hell for a couple hundred years before they actually die. It's never specified in the OP how everyone dies, just that it'll be an act of God.

Well dur. My decision is obviously based on the information provided in the OP. Notice how I said if the poor sap's eternal torture would sustain the universe (read: no heat death) I'd be all for it. Any decision can be a bad one if you alter the factors that led to that decision in the first place. What exactly are you trying to prove?

Let's see... *snip attempt to suggest I can't read*

I'm talking specifically about the victim's suffering. You know, the guy/girl/gender-neutral robot/alien thing that would be the subject of this entire thread? Even assuming that everyone else in the unvierse's life is absolutely peachy (which only a blithering idiot would assume) there's shitloads more suffering entailed in option A than B.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I say 'No'.

If this deity thingie is placing this sort of decision on me. Either it is the absolute epitome of childish cruelty and pointless suffering, or it is operating off a system of morals so alien to me that I cannot even begin to comprehend it.

That being said, I have either the chance to allow this creature to condemn one being to 'eternal' agony so that the rest of us can live under Its obviously psychotic whims. Or I can say no, have no suffering whatsoever, and be freed from being a puppet to this insane being with the dissolution of my consciousness. Fuck, there's no choice involved there.

Fuck what everyone else wants, if that was important, this deity-thingie probably wouldn't have made me the sole-arbiter now, would it? Fuck the 'greater-good' as well. There is *no* 'greater-good' that can be achieved in a universe run under the will of such a tyrannical, childish being. I'd rather end Its little game early and stop all the suffering this obviously sadistic creep had planned for everything before it starts.

~Damienkitty

[Surlethe]

Let's see... *snip attempt to suggest I can't read*

I'm talking specifically about the victim's suffering. You know, the guy/girl/gender-neutral robot/alien thing that would be the subject of this entire thread?

Can you read?

b) Everyone dies with oodles of additional suffering, plus infinate suffering for one poor schmuck.

Either way, you're evading my point that A and B do not have the exact same outcome.

Even assuming that everyone else in the unvierse's life is absolutely peachy (which only a blithering idiot would assume) there's shitloads more suffering entailed in option A than B.

In other words, you would kill everyone so one person doesn't have to suffer. By your "logic", if a woman is going to have a child, you should nuke her city into glass.