Roma

First, I realize this might sound a little crazy, but I swear I'm not insane and am just asking this out of curiosity.

Let's say, hypothetically, one could build a bomb that would annihilate all life on Earth a tenth of a second after detonation, causing no pain to any living thing.

The Golden Rule seems to be the basis of most sets of moral principles. Obviously most people wouldn't just want to die at some arbitrary point in their lives, regardless of the pain involved. However, painless murder can still be said to be wrong primarily because it involves the taking a life without the victim's permission, and also because it causes pain to those who knew the victim. In the aftermath of a world-killing detonation, there would be nobody alive, so nobody would feel pain of any kind.

I am not sure that I can come up with a decent answer to this situation. On one hand, there would be nobody to exist and no pain involved. On the other hand, since there would be nobody on earth to contemplate this situation, it seems to be a vacuous hypothetical scenario.

Is this indeed a vacuous hypothetical scenario? Any comments/thoughts would be appreciated.

-Roma

[edit: wording/spelling]

cheetah

Just because no one if left to think, "Hmmm, harm has been doen to me." doesn't mean harm hasn't been done or that that harm is still not valid. even with no one left to bemoan the harm, the harm still exists, which I guess is something like the old if a tree falls in the forest question.

Vandrare

well another argument that i would have against the killing of a person is the destruction of potential. the possible impact that a person could have, even completely unwittingly on the world in their future, is impossible to know. that way killing anyone could be the act that deprives the world of some amazing new eventuality. therefore killing everyone..... hmmm.... not good!

:-D Anna

trekbette

Killing off all people is probably the only way to ensure world peace.

sweep

I would like to end the lives of those who want to end lives, since those who want to end lives are ending the lives of those who don't want their lives ended, which is the whole fucking point. Life is good, not living is bad.

trekbette is spot on. world peace; it certainly would be a peaceful world, with no-one there to appreciate it.

I know: 'ending all life' the sequel. 'End the universe', then end the ender. but who will end the tool that ended the ender? brilliant new thread. go for it!

Vandrare

umm.... i'm going with the big crunch!

:-D Anna

Jamie_L

A morality based on "who is hurting after this act is done" is not really a tennable moral system, at least not for human beings. It sets up all sorts of extreme (and not-so-extreme) cases of things being "moral" that a majority of people would consider quite immoral. It seems that such systems aren't really getting at what human morality is all about.

The golden rule is a good moral rule of thumb, but it isn't really the root of human morality. It's more of an approximation of what results when we apply the root of morality.

Killing a person prevents that person from persuing their desire to continue their lives. That's what makes it immoral. It doesn't matter whether or not it's a painless death or whether or not anyone suffers from their loss.

Jamie

rainbow walking

rw: Then morality is based on human desires?