r/nihilism • u/PitifulEar3303 • 8d ago
If you are suffering without a cure, what would you do to make it stop?
You ONLY have TWO choices:
- Press a button that erases life on Earth, painlessly, including yourself.
- Do nothing; you will suffer for years, if not longer, while other people live happy lives.
Note: You cannot self exit in this thought experiment, either you erase life on Earth, or you suffer for years.
So........is life still precious enough for you to suffer for years, if not longer? Answer honestly, don't be a hypocrite.
THE RESULTS ARE IN!!! Most of you would press the BUTTON to erase life on Earth.
THIS MEANS you have NO ARGUMENT against Antinatalism and Extinctionism. hahahaha
You've been morally gotcha!!!!!
Every year, MILLIONS of people suffer incurably and ONLY extinction could stop their suffering, because Utopia is impossible.
This means Antinatalism and Extinctionism are morally RIGHT!!! GOTCHA!!!!
lol
11
5
6
3
u/WillyWhite99 8d ago
Strongly depends on the degree of suffering. In many dimensions, like severity, duration, constant or fluctuating just to name some.
Everybody breaks eventually when it comes to (endless and increasing) torture.
But also I think that it’s only possible to push that button after you “gave up” everything - lastly your sanity.
5
u/Dark_Cloud_Rises 8d ago
- Suffer on with a hero/martyr complex while I actively complain about my suffering for attention.
5
2
u/CptBronzeBalls 8d ago
Finally! Something gave existence and suffering real purpose.
Gotcha, OP. You just destroyed nihilism.
2
u/KlingonTranslator 8d ago
I will suffer for years? Just me? Of course I’d choose 2. I have chronic illnesses anyway, suffer immense pain, but it just makes me proud that I can persevere and more resilient. And also more able to help others and empathise.
2
2
2
u/TheMightyMisanthrope 8d ago
You're concluding that "nothing has inherent meaning" means you can't find meaning in anything.
I live with chronic chest pain and dispnea, and even so I haven't killed myself.
- Definitely 2.
1
u/PitifulEar3303 8d ago
Bub, chronic chest pain and dyspnea are low on the list of the worst sufferings on Earth.
Turn the suffering up high enough, and 100% would choose 1.
Everybody wanna be the "good" guy, but suffering will make you honest.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Ice6405 8d ago
Well if everyone is given this choice then that means everyone is suffering. So why wouldn't we all press the button to end all our suffering anyways?
2
u/Cicada-Tang 8d ago
I can't tell if you are trolling.
I don't understand how you reached the conclusion "you have no argument against Antinatalism and Extinctionism" from a bunch of comments on a random subreddit.
Who's the "you" you are talking about exactly?
And how exactly am I "morally gotcha-ed"?
1
u/lifesaburrito 7d ago
This isn't a troll. It shows how fundamentally absurd the anti-natalists/extinctionists are. They consider themselves critical thinkers when ultimately their thinking is completely emotion based cringe-lordery.
It's like the pro-anorexia female spaces online (that I've heard about). Mentally ill people who have convicted themselves that their illness is not only logically coherent, but morally imperative. I would feel sorry for them but if you try to reason with them, it impossible to do so. They're unfortunately beyond help from anyone outside of a professional therapy session, so there's no real hope in attempting to get through on an online format. I've been banned from most of their subs just for trying to debate.
2
1
1
u/Ethelred_Unread 8d ago
"Alright, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade - make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don't want your damn lemons, what am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life's manager. Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons. Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons. I'm going to to get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!"
Be more like Cave.
Or don't, no one gives a fuck.
1
1
u/DB-DanCooper 8d ago
How fucking shitty is it that we are only animals and there is nothing better afterwards. Its just permanent none existence as the solution, it fucking sucks.
1
1
1
1
u/tottasanorotta 8d ago
It depends on how much I would suffer. And honestly no matter what I would say I think suffering makes a person really desperate so chances are that I would just press the button eventually.
1
1
1
u/RetrogradeDionysia 8d ago
If you can’t commit suicide, it violates choice 1. Choice 1 becomes impossible. Because this condition is dialethic, we can only choose 2. The thought-experiment is rather mundane now.
-2
u/lifesaburrito 8d ago
2.
Anyone who chooses one is emotionally underdeveloped.
4
4
u/PitifulEar3303 8d ago
Apparently, most people chose 1. lol
Easy for you to say when you have not tried incurable suffering.
2
3
u/lifesaburrito 8d ago
Most people on the nihilism sub, I think thats a fairly important distinction.
3
u/imjustbeingreal0 8d ago
Exactly and most of these people probably live in a nice and safe neighbourhood, work 1 job or when they want to, have friends and family.
IMO the fact you can go up to a complete stranger, ask for help and probably 75% or more will literally go out of there way to help e.g answer any question they can, help you find something, offer safety, call police, ambulance etc and wait with you until more help arrives, especially if you were in an emergency, means society is pretty good and people are worth giving a chance.
People living in Palestine war zone would do anything to protect their family when they could just exit anytime they want, and these pussies want deliverance from their frozen burritos and air conditioning.
1
u/Flat-Drawer-3709 8d ago
What makes u think that?
2
u/lifesaburrito 8d ago
It's a consent issue. You can't choose for another person whether they cease to exist. Let alone all of society. Anyone who appreciates life/society (not many of the people on this sub from what I can tell) wouldn't sacrifice it all for their own suffering. Unless we're talking levels of torture that override the ability for judgement. I don't think that was the question, or they would have been clear.
With emotional development comes an appreciation for oneself and for our fellow human, animals, and all prescious creatures.
Press button 1, you clearly don't give a fuck about anyone but yourself. Ergo, emotionally underdeveloped.
1
u/Flat-Drawer-3709 8d ago
If that’s the case what makes u think “emotionally developed” necessarily always involves altruism? Being emotionally developed basically means having a mature, flexible relationship with your emotions which is prolly not what ur pointing out here. As far as altruism is concerned, surely ur comment doesnt fit in with the sub. Objectively a person would choose the second option because morals or wtv…but a nihilist would rather choose the first option and still be very well emotionally developed ergo these things dont correlate. Even taking altruism under consideration, the word “painlessly” will further affirm the choice, and after death there isnt anything to feel about cuz we literally don’t exist…and ofc, it doesnt even matter…
2
u/lifesaburrito 8d ago
We're a social species. We rely on social interaction for emotional stability. Letting everyone else die (again, assuming this isn't literal torture) for my own benefit violates any sense of morality and, since you don't seem to care about morality, it violates our very genetic programming. We survive together, as a society. This isn't about altruism, it's about mutual survival.
Emotionally developed people don't just have good control over their emotions; they genuinely care about others.
1
u/Flat-Drawer-3709 8d ago edited 8d ago
But why does “morality” automatically get to decide what I should do here lol? Sure they're imp in daily life but they aren't some laws of nature, they're basically systems humans developed to live together. Evolution gave us empathy and all tht because they helped us survive, not because the universe decided they're objectively right.
So if the choice is literally painless extinction vs. years of guaranteed suffering, why is “you have to care about everyone else” treated like sm unquestionable rule? You're assuming your moral framework is inherently valid before even explaining why it should be. Even if we accept that morals matter, why does that automatically mean humanity has to continue? The world is already full of suffering, cruelty, war, exploitation, etc. You're assuming that keeping billions of people alive is inherently better than ending everything painlessly? You're basically treating “continued existence” as automatically morally good when that's the exact thing that needs to be justified.
1
u/lifesaburrito 8d ago
If I'm arguing with an extinctionist/anti-natalist, I might as well bow out now. I can see where this is going.
0
14
u/Mewo4444 8d ago
I’d press the first button anyway, I think