I don’t understand why “death is negative” needs to be an axiom. For me, the reason death is (usually) negative is a consequence of “suffering is bad.”
If the entire solar system would instantaneously blip out of existence (without anyone knowing about it beforehand), I don’t see why that would be bad. I agree that thinking about this scenario causes mild suffering, but IMO that doesn’t imply that the event itself is bad. Just that we sometimes have flawed intuitions.
I just wrote this in my next post but TLDR I think even beyond this, I have some preference for: current world continue to exist VS current world ends and is replaced with one with a similar amount of pleasure/suffering. It’s probably me just being biased, but I do still hold this somewhat.
Opportunity cost and value require a subject for whom things can be better or worse. In a lifeless universe, there are no such subjects, so nothing is lost.
Would you say that a universe with a single person who lives 1 year in happiness is equally as valuable as one in which a single person lives 1000 years in happiness?
If the entire solar system would instantaneously blip out of existence
Thought experiments in which magic has lined everything up to produce the desired conclusion have little value, especially when the real world can provide much more practical scenarios. Here is a baby that is barely cared for in a badly run orphange. Here is a handgun. Solve this problem.
that doesn’t imply that the event itself is bad. Just that we sometimes have flawed intuitions.
So the person reading the thought experiment is supposed to find it intuitively compelling the view that death is not itself bad; yet you dismiss intuitions to the contrary as flawed. When intuitions conflict, how do you decide which to follow and which to dismiss?
I don’t understand why “death is negative” needs to be an axiom. For me, the reason death is (usually) negative is a consequence of “suffering is bad.”
If the entire solar system would instantaneously blip out of existence (without anyone knowing about it beforehand), I don’t see why that would be bad. I agree that thinking about this scenario causes mild suffering, but IMO that doesn’t imply that the event itself is bad. Just that we sometimes have flawed intuitions.
That would be bad if for no other reason then for the opportunity cost of the lost future value of the solar system.
(although I agree that it is unnecessary to add the death-is-bad axiom, since in this case, pleasure-is-good does the work)
I just wrote this in my next post but TLDR I think even beyond this, I have some preference for: current world continue to exist VS current world ends and is replaced with one with a similar amount of pleasure/suffering. It’s probably me just being biased, but I do still hold this somewhat.
Opportunity cost and value require a subject for whom things can be better or worse. In a lifeless universe, there are no such subjects, so nothing is lost.
Would you say that a universe with a single person who lives 1 year in happiness is equally as valuable as one in which a single person lives 1000 years in happiness?
Thought experiments in which magic has lined everything up to produce the desired conclusion have little value, especially when the real world can provide much more practical scenarios. Here is a baby that is barely cared for in a badly run orphange. Here is a handgun. Solve this problem.
So the person reading the thought experiment is supposed to find it intuitively compelling the view that death is not itself bad; yet you dismiss intuitions to the contrary as flawed. When intuitions conflict, how do you decide which to follow and which to dismiss?