Fine, but it still seems like a reason one could give for death being net good (which is your chief criterion for being a deathist).
I do think it’s a weaker reason than the second one. The following argument in defence of it is mainly for fun:
I slightly have the feeling that it’s like that decision theory problem where the devil offers you pieces of a poisoned apple one by one. First half, then a quarter, then an eighth, than a sixteenth… You’ll be fine unless you eat the whole apple, in which case you’ll be poisoned. Each time you’re offered a piece it’s rational to take it, but following that policy means you get poisoned.
The analogy is that I consider living for eternity to be scary, and you say, “well, you can stop any time”. True, but it’s always going to be rational for me to live for one more year, and that way lies eternity.
The analogy is that I consider living for eternity to be scary, and you say, “well, you can stop any time”. True, but it’s always going to be rational for me to live for one more year, and that way lies eternity.
The distinction you want is probably not rational/irrational but CDT/UDT or whatever,
Also,
insurance against the worst outcomes lasting forever
well, it’s also insurance against the best outcomes lasting forever (though you’re probably going to reply that bad outcomes are more likely than good outcomes and/or that you care more about preventing bad outcomes than ensuring good outcomes)
Fine, but it still seems like a reason one could give for death being net good (which is your chief criterion for being a deathist).
I do think it’s a weaker reason than the second one. The following argument in defence of it is mainly for fun:
I slightly have the feeling that it’s like that decision theory problem where the devil offers you pieces of a poisoned apple one by one. First half, then a quarter, then an eighth, than a sixteenth… You’ll be fine unless you eat the whole apple, in which case you’ll be poisoned. Each time you’re offered a piece it’s rational to take it, but following that policy means you get poisoned.
The analogy is that I consider living for eternity to be scary, and you say, “well, you can stop any time”. True, but it’s always going to be rational for me to live for one more year, and that way lies eternity.
The distinction you want is probably not rational/irrational but CDT/UDT or whatever,
Also,
well, it’s also insurance against the best outcomes lasting forever (though you’re probably going to reply that bad outcomes are more likely than good outcomes and/or that you care more about preventing bad outcomes than ensuring good outcomes)