The Only Real And Consistent Moral System Is The One About One's Own Pain And Happiness

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 9
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,647
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
If I had to choose between:

1. I get badly tortured

2. Six billion people get badly tortured

I would always choose 2.

Consequentialism may say:
Choosing 1 results in least pain, as only one person gets tortured.

However, the problem is that the one person getting tortured would be me.

Option 2 hurts six billion people, but it doesnt hurt me.

I dont feel pain of other people. However, I feel my own pain.

So logically, the only morality I am interested in is reducing my own pain and increasing my own happiness.

I dont give a shit if any number of people suffer if the choice is me or them. I will always choose to save myself.

Think of it this way.

Example:
I will get tortured for all eternity. It will be really painful.
However, there is a button that I can press so that I stop my torture. However, six billion people will be tortured for all eternity instead of me, each same as I would have been tortured.

I would press the button.

This doesnt make me some monster. No, I would still feel bad that people are getting tortured. But at least its not me who gets tortured. Better them than me.
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,610
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
I would always choose 2.
Wouldn't that make you Satan?
Topic's author
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,647
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
Technically, yes.
#4
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@FLRW
And choosing 1 makes you Jesus, apparently.
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
So 6 billion are being tortured.

Which leaves 2 billion torturers.

1 in 3

Feasible statistic I suppose.

 
Q. How long would it take 6 billion people to press the one available stop button.

 At 1 per second, it would take 6 billion seconds.

That's about 190 years.


Q. How long would it take to retro-fit 6 billion stop buttons.


I think that in both instances, supply would never keep up with demand.


Though there would be species regeneration to consider.

Another supply and demand issue.


And let's not forget the poor people having to maintain such a high level of torture.

The workload would be torturous.


I suppose that in both camps some would undoubtedly achieve erotic satisfaction.

Would this be moral?


Topic's author
#6
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,647
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Thats why Jesus is the truth. Literally no human would choose 1.
#7
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Best.Korea
"Oh so what he did was implausible for a human. Still let's believe in him and revere him as a savior or something."
Topic's author
#8
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,647
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Exactly. He was God, not human.
#9
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
Does the title "The Only Real and Consistent Moral System is the One About One's Own Pain and Happiness" adequately account for non-physical pain, including emotional pain like regret or remorse? Furthermore, how does this moral system address situations where the pain or happiness of someone deeply important to you profoundly impacts your own sense of meaning and purpose, leading to physical pain due to the negativity of existence and meaninglessness?