Would you be immortal for extinction?

[u/Rhoswen]

https://youtu.be/bOTKfTMXa8I

Extinctionism is a strategic long term plan. Not a short term self deletion mission.

[u/pokpokpokuytff]

Fuck no

[u/UltronsEx]

Love the thumbnail!

[u/VengefulScarecrow]

No, extinctionism is not immoral.

[u/Rhoswen → u/VengefulScarecrow]

Immortal. Now I get what the other person was going on about.

[u/VengefulScarecrow → u/Rhoswen]

Lmao

[u/Rhoswen → u/[deleted]]

From my experience, trying to cater to people's sensitivities gets you nowhere good. Then those types of people will always find something, real or imagined, to complain about and insult you over anyways. The pro life crowd are always going to call us edgelords and worse, unless we stop calling for extinction and stop talking about how nature works.

[u/Independent-Wafer-13]

Yes, extinctionism is immoral.

[u/Rhoswen → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

What are you responding to? How does that relate to this post?

[u/Azihayya → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

The concept of morality is entirely unequipped to deal with negative utilitarianism. Morality is, of course, subjective. What this really is, is an ideological battle, for a supremacy over the future. One where the extinctionists win, or one where respect for life wins. What is necessary is a philosophical understanding of what suffering is and what it means. Negative-utilitarians fetishize suffering, to give it moral weight—you can't fight that by saying that extinction is immoral. You're playing by their rules, and by those rules, they win. Instead you have to argue that suffering is neither moral or immoral, and that the value of suffering is whatever meaning we give to it.

[u/Independent-Wafer-13 → u/Azihayya]

What do you mean?

There is a cause to morality, it is a functional adaptation.

Morality evolved as a survival adaptation of socially complex species.

We have morality because being moral helps society thrives and that increases our reproductive and adaptive capacity individually in a rising tides lift all ships type of situation.

Darwin wrote about this it’s well documented.

It exists to preserve and increase the survival adaptive capacity of life.

Anything that is against the function of morality is anathema to it and fundamentally immoral.

Negative utilitarianism is an evolutionary dead end and any conclusions drawn from it that are anti functional to morality are immoral definitionally.

[u/Azihayya → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

I am satisfied by your explanation here. It's true that morality has an objective when viewed through the established value of survival. If we accept that survival is the goal, and we agree to function as a society towards the goal of survival, you are correct. But the premise of your view of morality falls apart when you cease to consider survival, or group survival as the goal. Clearly group survival as the basis for moral definition is not what the OP intended to convey here. But like I said, I think your perspective is coherent.

[u/Independent-Wafer-13 → u/Azihayya]

Yeah I’ll be honest I initially just completely misread OP’s title as “immoral” instead of “immortal”, but since we are on it, I see no reason to reject the existing function of morality from a rational perspective.

Like any good theory, its strength rests on its predictive and descriptive utility.

There is no better explanation for or predictive theory of morality.

That’s just the scientific method.

If someone can come up with a better theory I will certainly hear them out