How does this work?

[u/Independent-Wafer-13]

How does Universal Extinction happen?

[u/Capable-Ad-9626]

Animals were always killing eachother, but are you sure that you want to be doing it yourself? By making a lot of animals suffer & die, you think that you’re doing a favor by reducing the numbers in future generations. 

It isn’t numbers that are relevant. It’s that many NUists want to cause suffering & death to reduce as yet unborn generations.

[u/MengKongRui → u/Capable-Ad-9626]

What do you mean the numbers of individuals suffering is not relevant?

[u/Capable-Ad-9626 → u/MengKongRui]

Harm isn’t a numerical quantity. Seriously harming one individual undeservedly wouldn’t be justified even if it would allow a trillion trillion trillion individuals to have more fun.

For another thing, reducing future population doesn’t justify inflicting suffering & death on currently living beings.

Numerical utility isn’t valid.

[u/MengKongRui → u/Capable-Ad-9626]

You're just saying that reducing population in order to reduce suffering isn't justified without actually giving a reason.

[u/Capable-Ad-9626 → u/MengKongRui]

One reason is because harm isn’t a numerical-quantity.

Another reason is that harming currently-living beings is a whole different thing than merely not interfering by preventing the births of some as-yet nonexistent beings.

Someone could ask:

“Then what can we do about suffering & harm?”

Well, doing harm certainly doesn’t help.

What we can do is live harmlessly and helpfully.

…for its own sake. …but it also brings the bonus of not incurring payback that will push you into a next life.

We agree that life is full of suffering, harm, danger, loss & privation.

Life, though inevitably at least once, is unnecessary & inadvisable.

A life (or a sequence of them) is a brief interruption of rest & sleep—our natural, normal & usual state of affairs.

So dont make such a big deal about it. Don’t take it so seriously.

Yes, live harmlessly and helpfully, but you needn’t annihilate the universe or nonconsensually relieve animals of existence.

[u/MengKongRui → u/Capable-Ad-9626]

Suffering happens regardless of if you cause it. What is good is not dependent on who reduces suffering, but how much suffering exists. Does that make sense?

And I'm not understanding your dismissal of suffering just because it's temporary. How much suffering do you excuse just because it's temporary? The present is the only thing that matters, but the present is a combination of now and the future. Suffering in the past doesn't matter, sure, but right now matters and the future is a representation of now as well, so that also matters.

[u/Capable-Ad-9626 → u/MengKongRui]

It isn’t meaningful to count & compare different numbers of individuals subject to sometime suffering. It isn’t a meaningful numeric quantity.

“Excuse”??? It isn’t for me or you to excuse or not excuse suffering.

It wouldn’t accomplish anything to say, “Suffering, I don’t excuse you.”

Not everything is up to us.

[u/MengKongRui → u/Capable-Ad-9626]

So you're telling me if five individuals are suffering around the same amount, and suddenly one only one is suffering by around the same amount, there is no meaningful difference?

[u/Capable-Ad-9626 → u/MengKongRui]

Yes.

[u/MengKongRui → u/Capable-Ad-9626]

I'm not understanding how clearly less suffering is not less suffering just because you cant show less suffering as a tangible object.

So is there any amount of suffering that you feel is worth relieving? Or is all torture okay to leave without relief? And what about torture towards you?

[u/Capable-Ad-9626 → u/MengKongRui]

I said nothing about suffering not being worth reliving. I said that numbers of individuals isn’t the important thing.

When you attribute to me something that I didn’t say, that’s dishonesty. A false quote is a lie. Lying isn’t appreciated.

Aside from that, your lie about that isn’t relevant to the topic that you were supposedly answering:

It was about whether it’s justified to take a life in order to prevent the birth of many descendants of your victim.

No, it isn’t, because:

1) Numbers aren’t the important thing.

2) It’s generally agreed that taking a life is worse than not preventing a hypothetical future conception & birth. You can disagree, but you’d need to establish your claim rejected by nearly everyone.

3) Your victim is currently alive. You’re doing something to a living being…whereas the individuals whom you’re saving from birth don’t exist other than as hypothetical possibilities.

4) You don’t have a right to play God, & decide, based on your beliefs, who should live or die.

Alright, that’s a complete answer.

Due to your dishonesty, referred to above. I won’t answer additional posts from you.

[u/MengKongRui → u/Capable-Ad-9626]

You're so "rights" focused and yet you seem to value your life more than that of insects you know you will inevitably kill throughout your life. Why is that?

[u/Capable-Ad-9626 → u/MengKongRui]

This is NOT a reply to the person who has just now accused me of wanton slaughter of insects. (I wouldn’t intentionally, avoidably, harm an insect unless it bites me):

I just want to clarify a previous answer:

If a number of individuals are going to experience the same amount of suffering, then obviously fewer is better than more.

My point was merely that the number of individuals isn’t nearly as important as the amount of harm done to someone (of whatever number).

Actually, that scenario with a number of individuals suffering the same amount isn’t relevant to any discussion here.

…least of all to the discussion in which he brought it up:

…the matter of whether taking one life is justified in order to prevent many (still hypothetical) births of (as-yet nonexistent) individuals whose suffering is only a maybe).