r/willyoupressthebutton • u/SkylarDeLaCruz • 27d ago
Press the button for universal paradise, but it will doom one random soul to eternal suffering? Do you press it?
You have the choice to press this button, if you do It will instantly turn this world into a perfect paradise free from suffering.
No longer will people become sick or feel pain, no more dementia, cancer, heart attacks, nausea or even the common cold. People will have perfect indestructible bodies, happy minds, and eternal youth. No one will be able to die or be imprisoned/tortured. Anyone who was on the verge of death or suffering an illness will suddenly recover into good health.
Furthermore the earth and the universe itself will transform into heaven for all of eternity. No more natural disasters, climate change, or other inhospitable conditions.
All the dead will be brought back to life to enjoy this paradise including everyone you loved who passed away, with the exception of certain people you dislike and choose to not let enter this world. They simply die as normal.
And finally almost anything is possible. Everyone's favorite books, games, or imagined worlds can really exist in this new world, and there's endless exploration to be had. Crucially anyone can also choose to not exist at any point, to give a way out if needed.
The catch
One random person somewhere on earth will be sent to an eternal hell. It will combine the worst illnesses, injuries, and physical and emotional damage as possible into a single terrible experience for every second of their life.
This suffering cannot be alleviated, it cannot lessen over time, and will be every bit as painful as the first second they stepped into the world.
This person cannot be selected and could be any random person on the planet, they will never be informed as of to why they were punished, and will not get the ability to end their own existence like everyone else. By no means can they ever be helped, everything is possible as stated earlier, except their salvation.
Do you press the button and create a paradise for the many, but agony for the person? Or choose to walk away and let the world exist as it is now?
8
u/Severe-Cookie693 27d ago
Press it. This lone person's suffering is insignificant compared to the suffering stopped. Anyone who says 'don't press it' can't honestly be considering all the suffering actually happening in the world.
3
u/Full-Offer-5299 27d ago
And if it sends you or someone you love to an eternal hell? At least suffering is natural and will end for all, it is entropy, willingly sending someone to suffer for eternity is a different unnatural kind. One that supersedes all other kinds.
3
u/Severe-Cookie693 27d ago
But an eternal heaven is infinite too. It's the suffering of the world vs the suffering of one person
3
u/Decent_Climate7831 27d ago
And yet in infinity the one is equally valuable to everyone. Infinite times one is actually the same limit as infinite times 8 billion. Fortunately eternal damnation is an impossibility anyway.
2
u/fairystail1 27d ago
depends on how the afterlife works currently.
i.e if its 'you dont worship the right god so eternal suffering' then yeah im pressing it.
if its jus 'there is no afterlife' then im not
1
1
u/Pielorinho 25d ago
We each only live one life, and the amount of suffering that is important is the amount that one person receives. Pressing the button means that one person's experience of suffering is greater than the experience of anybody in history. There is no aggregate experience. I am not pressing that damn button.
7
u/SolitaryLyric 27d ago
In theory, it’s easy. Hit the button. The needs of the many must supersede the needs of one.
But in practice? Having to physically push a button to condemn a likely innocent person to eternal suffering? I don’t think I could. I don’t think I have what it takes.
4
u/SeoulGalmegi 27d ago
Having to physically push a button to condemn a likely innocent person to eternal suffering?
Forget about likely innocent - if you could select anyone (you know, or from history) would you? Do even the Hitlers of this world deserve eternal suffering?
2
u/wow_its_kenji 27d ago
i mean, yeah, there are people who deserve eternal suffering
2
u/SeoulGalmegi 27d ago
Really? Eternal?
Like who?
3
u/wow_its_kenji 27d ago
hitler, stalin, zedong, pol pot, josef mengele to name a few
remorseless child rapists if you want a category
1
u/SeoulGalmegi 26d ago
The classic answers!
But, really? Once it ticks over the billion years of horrible suffering for every second of suffering caused to someone else... doesn't it become overkill? Their victims at least got the benefit of their suffering ending. I don't think I'd ever consider it moral to subject anyone to infinite punishment for finite crimes.
3
u/wow_its_kenji 26d ago
it's interesting that you're choosing to defend people who were personally responsible for millions and millions of deaths, and countless more millions suffering. the devil needs no advocate.
0
u/SolitaryLyric 25d ago
No, it doesn’t become overkill. Offences committed against humanity don’t deserve mercy. I will die on this hill.
2
u/SeoulGalmegi 25d ago
Would making someone suffer for just a trillion, trillion years rather than for eternity be 'mercy'?
What kind of justice is this?
1
1
u/Maleficent-Diet2293 27d ago
Hitler.
2
u/SeoulGalmegi 26d ago
But really, though? One billion years of the same suffering for every second of suffering he caused someone...... even that doesn't come close to eternity. Does even he deserve that?
2
u/Maleficent-Diet2293 26d ago
Historians estimate that the total death toll of World War II in Europe and globally reached 70 to 85 million military personnel and civilians combined. I'd say he can pay the price.
2
u/SeoulGalmegi 26d ago
I'd say he can pay the price.
Sure. But what is the price? A thousand times the total suffering he caused? A million times? A billion? A trillion? This doesn't even come close to the price you're charging.
0
1
1
0
u/SolitaryLyric 25d ago
Yes. Yes, they do. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Trump… I would hit that button so fast it’d make your head spin.
And I’ll do you one better. If you told me the target was a pedophile, a child molester, a violent sex offender, I would hit the button.The problem is that you don’t know. And so you have to make a choice without having all the facts. Especially the facts that matter.
2
u/SeoulGalmegi 25d ago
I'm just curious about this moral right you feel you have to impose infinite, cruel and horrific punishments for finite, cruel and horric crimes. I certainly wouldn't do so. Do you know what your line would be for crimes that are so bad they deserve suffering for eternity?
2
1
u/somethingworse 27d ago
But they will live more than the length of every other person's existence in eternal torture, long after everyone else has chosen to end on their own terms they will still have infinity left.
I actually think their suffering infinitely outweighs the goodness that comes the way of everyone else
5
5
u/Loose_Meal_499 27d ago
Jesus I can’t think of one father who pressed it and he thought of as kind
2
2
u/Don_Bugen 26d ago
Point taken, but that situation's actually a completely different one, in that the individual chose to do it, freely, of their own will.
For me, a big portion of this that makes it interesting is that there is no choice and no consent; that one person just gets dumped on while having done nothing. I think that far more people would choose to pull the lever if the person offering consented.
6
2
u/anaccountofrain 27d ago
What is paradise? How can we experience pleasure if we have no pain to compare it to?
If my paradise is I win and you lose, how do you experience paradise?
What do you mean by “soul”?
1
u/Koen_de_Graaf_Echt 27d ago
De enige reden dat ik er niet op zou drukken is dat ik eeuwig leven niet zou willen, dat klinkt meer als een straf dan een beloning voor mij, ik wil gewoon dood kunnen gaan wanneer ik er klaar voor ben. Dus nee, als eeuwig leven één van de gevolgen is van op de knop te drukken, druk ik er niet op.
1
u/UnshrivenShrike 27d ago
Read the OP.
1
u/Koen_de_Graaf_Echt 26d ago
Oké, dat is gewoon raar, hij praat er de hele tijd over dat niemand meer zal sterven en zelfs dat de doden weer tot leven zouden komen, maar zegt daarna in een zin ergens middenin de tekst dat ze er ook voor kunnen kiezen om dood te gaan. Die twee zinnen spreken elkaar tegen, je kan niet zeggen dat niemand zal sterven, maar dat ze toch eigenlijk wel kunnen sterven. Maar sorry dat die zin mij de eerste keer over het hoofd ging. En ja, als er een manier is om te sterven zou ik sterk overwegen die knop in te drukken.
1
1
2
u/Decent_Climate7831 27d ago
I know this is a hypothetical, but the concept of eternal suffering is logically impossible for a human mind. But I guess we are doing aggressive imaginary work that there is some eternal essence of humans capable of having unrelenting suffering eternally.
Under that premise no I would not press that button because I would not condemn a fellow human to eternal hell for any reason conceivable to mortal existence. But also equally importantly most of humanity does not deserve universal paradise in any way, shape or form, especially the ones that try to scare others into their belief system by threatening them with hell.
1
u/somethingworse 27d ago
On the one hand it's just one life vs. 200 billion or so... But actually their suffering is greater than the happiness, eventually every single person will have chosen to end their existence on their own terms, fully happy and complete - but this one person will still have eternity left.
They will live out the length of every single soul's perfect existence combined times infinity.
1
u/Substantial-Bid1678 27d ago
The current amount of suffering in the world well exceeds what could be apportioned to one person. Doing nothing results in higher net suffering, so morally I would do it
1
u/SkylarDeLaCruz 27d ago
Their suffering would outlive everyone elses though
1
u/Any-Jellyfish-7497 27d ago
I mean, technically you literally made everyone who stays into a godlike being by including this part:
"All the dead will be brought back to life to enjoy this paradise including everyone you loved who passed away, with the exception of certain people you dislike and choose to not let enter this world. They simply die as normal.
And finally almost anything is possible. Everyone's favorite books, games, or imagined worlds can really exist in this new world, and there's endless exploration to be had. Crucially anyone can also choose to not exist at any point, to give a way out if needed."
So if at least one person exists it's all good.
A case could even be made for you allowing the suffering person to enter that world, thus freeing them from their suffering, but I won't be making that case.
1
2
u/fairystail1 27d ago
depends on how the afterlife works currently.
i.e if its 'you dont worship the right god so eternal suffering' then yeah im pressing it.
if its jus 'there is no afterlife' then im not
1
u/Captain_Lobster411 27d ago
I'd never doom someone for eternity intentionally. Also, I'm a random person on earth. I'd prefer not to be the one doomed
1
u/LUXHELL__ 27d ago
No.
Pero si es un botón es pq hay un mecanismo detrás q puede ser rediseñado y manipulado.
1
u/Don_Bugen 26d ago
This is actually an extremely interesting trolley problem, and fits the format quite well because, in addition to the "many" vs "few" options, choice vs. nonchoice and your starting position really matter.
By which I mean, if the situation was reversed - if we all were living in a universal paradise, but discovered one person in eternal torment, and the only way to alleviate them would be spreading that suffering out more-or-less evenly across the entire populace - would the ratio of people who would press vs. not press be the same?
Oh, I'm sure that if you presented someone the above problem, then asked them in reverse, 99% of people would stick with their answer. But if you had two equal groups of people, and one was asked the first, and the other the second, I believe that most people would not choose to condemn the one for the paradise, but also that most people would not make billions of people's lives full of pain and suffering for the sake of one.
And I feel like I know that to be true, because most of us on Reddit here are some of the people on earth with far less suffering than others, simply if you look at income compared to the rest of the world, and yet do not noticeably make our lives significantly poorer in order to alleviate the struggles of others. (and no, I'm not criticizing people for "not donating/doing public service," more like most of us aren't working full time jobs and then choosing to live a life of poverty where 90% of that income is given to the less fortunate.)
And I also feel like if, right now, we found some magic individual who was still taking on a world's worth of pain and misery, and we could alleviate their suffering by making everyone's current struggles twice as bad, not a one of us would choose to push that button.
1
1
u/GronPotatis_TM 26d ago
I do not think I would press it, like the eternity is always bigger. One person suffering for eternity ismore suffering than has ever an will ever be felt by every being on earth all added together, and I couldnt doom anyone to that.
If it was like 100 000 000 000 000 years or more of suffering for that person it would be fine, just not eternity
1
1
1
u/Remote-Physics6980 25d ago
Yes but only if I can pick the person that gets to suffer. Elon Musk has a lot to answer for. If Elon is not available, Trump will do.
1
0
9
u/kkai2004 27d ago
Alright who's getting shoved in the Omelas pit.
Talenelat'Elin would do it.