But murder isn’t wrong because of it being against the law, that’s not the thing that makes murder bad
Failing to prevent someone from dying when you could do so is arguably morally equivalent to murder
if you’re in danger as well that obviously changes the moral equation because your own life is morally valuable as well, not just the life of the person you would save
if you can save someone else’s life with no harm to anyone else then obviously you should do that??
Would be cool to see how immortality (or at least perceived immortality) would impact the mind and how people make decisions
1 Like
By giving someone immortality that they cannot undo, you made it so that if they ever don’t want to continue living they cannot end it. They will be suffering, and you are the one that caused it.
Then you have to weigh the negative effects of them being an asshole against the positive effects of saving their lives
in most circumstances it’s still morally good to save them for the same reason that you’re not allowed to murder assholes
They…adapt
Drowning in a pit of despair is why immortality at a societal level should not be a thing, but for individuals who can grow and undergo changes in their thought process, ye
Every day, people might undergo feelings of wanting death
I myself am not a stranger to this
But I eventually got myself to a better place mentally
1 Like
That’s because you know that you will be better soon. The immortal mind will be thinking much ahead in the future then you, and may think, if I overcome this, in the next hundred years I’ll do this again
With Immortality I just realized how education would be so worthless in work stuff lmao
I never thought I would get better
In fact, I only thought it would get worse until I started to make changes in my life to help release some of the personal burden I had on myself
And I think about it a lot
People think about death a LOT
Guess you could say it comes in waves
Just look at the mound of work psychology has done in regards to depression and then make judgements of immortality based off of that
For most things that can be expressed quantitatively there’s an optimal value, and one of the following three possibilities will be the case:
- the optimal value is higher than the current value
- the optimal value is lower than the current value
- there is a very good and compelling reason why the current value is the current value
Take, for example, rates of pediatric cancer. If the rate of people getting pediatric cancer could be decreased (keeping everything else the same, like, I’m not suggesting that we murder everyone before they can get cancer because that’s obviously dumb), then it would be good to do so, because children dying of cancer is bad.
This means that unless there’s a compelling argument for keeping the number at its current location, it is very likely that it should be increased or decreased.
so how does this apply to immortality?
Take our number at current human lifespans. There’s nothing magical or special about current human lifespans, no particularly good reason why they should be exactly at the length they’re at now and not lower or higher. Obviously ‘make them shorter’ is an option, but most people don’t suddenly become suicidal when they hit 65, or whatever, and even people basically at peace with the thing where they’re going to die don’t usually try to die younger, which supports the idea that we shouldn’t be working to decrease human lifespans. This leaves one option, which is that on balance it would be good to extend human lifespans if possible.
then you do induction from there
You can’t deal with logic when you are dealing with humans ironically you have to deal with the emotions.
1 Like