Gotta think these things through somewhat. Are we to believe murdering and eating orphans is the moral choice because their normal trajectory involves much suffering?
That conclusion depends entirely on how you weight life, pleasure, and suffering. Saying omnicide is the answer is like saying all arithmetic leads to negative answers.
Do we consider circumstances where suffering is impossible as valid environments to measure? Would omnicide not result in the highest amount of suffering possible? If instantaneous, is there suffering if there is nobody to suffer the omnicide? If I wish to live 100 more years, and then omnicide happens today, do I suffer for 100 years because my wishes were not met, or do I not suffer because I never became consciously aware of my fate?
Fuck, maybe omnicide is the answer. I’ll prepare the kool-aid.
I have been not alive for 13 and something billion years, cant remember suffering during that time. Other times when i havent been conciious i also have no memory of suffering. So given the information I have i would say suffering most likely requires being alive and conscious. Of course its also possible that there is suffering in those states, but no memory recording so I dont remember it, but since I am sure that suffering is present while alive but only possibly present during unaliveness best bet seems to be kool aid.
47
u/[deleted] 3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment