paul cotter and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Given the knowledge of what would happen in the future, the option is obvious. He should defect to the enemy. Giving them information he have to help ending the war as quickly as possible.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 10/05/2020 11:40:25In your case, someone elses get benefit from J's death, although it may not be felt significant. There would be more O2 and less CO2. More space. Less disease vector. Less sh1t and urine. If J's existence can't compensate the burden he brings to the others, then letting him go would be a better option, especially when he himself doesn't want to live anymore.But that would be the case for any suicide. So it's a universally good thing to do. I think we agree.
In your case, someone elses get benefit from J's death, although it may not be felt significant. There would be more O2 and less CO2. More space. Less disease vector. Less sh1t and urine. If J's existence can't compensate the burden he brings to the others, then letting him go would be a better option, especially when he himself doesn't want to live anymore.
The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that any data we collect about the universe is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable in the first place, it must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.
IMO, suicidal behavior can only be acceptable if we know that there are other conscious beings which are not suicidal, and get some benefit from our death.
To get the most universal moral rule, we can test them against various situations, and see which rules stand out all of them. In many ordinary situations, most common moral rules would pass. Fundamental rules must still be followed in some extreme cases, such as trolley problems and Heinz dilemma. If an exception can be justified when dealing with those extreme cases, that particular rule is not universally applicable.Here is the most extreme case I can think of. A gamma ray burst suddenly attack earth killing all known conscious being, except you who is currently in a spaceship toward Mars.You are the last conscious being in the universe. Your most fundamental moral duty is to survive. You'll need to improve yourself to be better at survival. You'll need to improve your knowledge and make better tools to help you survive. You may need to modify yourself, either genetically or by merging with robotics. You may need to create backup/clones to eliminate a single point failure. You may spread to different places and introduce diversity in the system to prevent common mode failure.Once you have backup, your own survival is no longer the highest priority. It enables altruism so it's ok to sacrifice yourself if it can improve the chance that your duplicates will continue to survive.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 10/05/2020 11:43:35Given the knowledge of what would happen in the future, the option is obvious. He should defect to the enemy. Giving them information he have to help ending the war as quickly as possible.The essence of effective command is that the cannon fodder know nothing of value to the enemy. That way, prisoners become a burden rather than an asset. Wars end when one side has won. Your solution presumes at least that the moral right is owned by the target.
It should be obvious that suicidal behavior is self defeating.
My answer above didn't take presumptions. It was made based on known fact about what would happen until long after the war ended.
IMO, death is a technical problem, which should be solved technically.]
You are the last conscious being in the universe. Your most fundamental moral duty is to survive.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2020 09:19:50It should be obvious that suicidal behavior is self defeating.Unless your objective in life is to kill others (like a bee, a kamikaze or a suicide bomber) or to avoid an unpleasant future, in which case it can be 100% effective.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2020 09:37:54My answer above didn't take presumptions. It was made based on known fact about what would happen until long after the war ended.You suggested that defection would be the morally correct decision as it would shorten the war. The Calais garrison was ordered to fight to the last man to protect the retreat to Dunkirk. Obvious suicide. They could have surrendered or even defected to clearly superior forces, allowing the Nazis to reach Dunkirk, wipe out the Allied armies, and thus shorten WWII by about 3 years. In what way would that have been morally correct?
No, it's the non-technical solution to the problem of overcrowding, mass starvation, and loss of capacity for independent survival.
To prevent unpleasant future, we can collectively build a system which can represent objective reality accurately and precisely,
The fact that you're still alive to write this post is an evidence that you don't really think that suicide is a universally good moral action.
What would happen if Hirohito didn't surrender?
The bees don't go extinct because they only commit suicide to protect their duplicates.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2020 21:41:15The bees don't go extinct because they only commit suicide to protect their duplicates.Not a good example. Bees don’t expect to commit suicide, their sting has evolved to kill other insects and they can sting them repeatedly without dying when protecting the hive. When they (rarely) sting thick skinned mammals eg humans the sting gets lodged in the skin and if torn out will kill the bee.Sometimes you will see the bee lodged in your skin, if you allow the bee to spin round or help it by holding it by the wings, it is possible for the sting to come out and the bee to survive.
Duty to whom?
So it means that bee's death after stinging enemy is an unintended consequence, rather than desired result. A better result for them is when they can repel the enemy without killing themselves.
We already have a system that represents reality. It's called reality. And we don't seem very good at dealing with it.
Research is happening at breakneck speed. About 80 groups around the world are researching vaccines and some are now entering clinical trials.The first human trial for a vaccine was announced last month by scientists in Seattle. Unusually, they are skipping any animal research to test its safety or effectivenessIn Oxford, the first human trial in Europe has started with more than 800 recruits - half will receive the Covid-19 vaccine and the rest a control vaccine which protects against meningitis but not coronavirusPharmaceutical giants Sanofi and GSK have teamed up to develop a vaccineAustralian scientists have begun injecting ferrets with two potential vaccines. It is the first comprehensive pre-clinical trial involving animals, and the researchers hope to test humans by the end of AprilHowever, no-one know how effective any of these vaccines will be.When will we have a coronavirus vaccine?A vaccine would normally take years, if not decades, to develop. Researchers hope to achieve the same amount of work in only a few months.Most experts think a vaccine is likely to become available by mid-2021, about 12-18 months after the new virus, known officially as Sars-CoV-2, first emerged.That would be a huge scientific feat and there are no guarantees it will work.Four coronaviruses already circulate in human beings. They cause common cold symptoms and we don't have vaccines for any of them.
So the fact that I'm not completely penniless is evidence that I don't think it is morally good to donate to charity, eh?
their sting has evolved to kill other insects and they can sting them repeatedly without dying when protecting the hive.