Saturday, February 25, 2012

Rational self destruction

1. Everyone has problems
2. A rational person should should solve their problems in the most efficient way
3. Suicide is the most efficient way of solving all one's problems
4. From 1-3, a rational person should commit suicide

I shall justify these assumptions in turn and then follow up with some miscellaneous commentary.

Everyone has problems
If people have no problems, then the question immediately arises as to what they're actually doing if not solving problems. People avoid pain because pain is a problem and seek pleasure because the lack of pleasure is a problem. If pain were not a problem then people would be indifferent to pain and if the lack of pleasure was not a problem then they wouldn't bother seeking pleasure.

A rational person should should solve their problems in the most efficient way possible
All else equal, if there are two solutions to a problem and one is better than the other for whatever reason, then not choosing the better option is tantamount to indifference to the resolution to the problem i.e. the problem never existed in the first place. The only other case for someone knowingly choosing an inferior option and yet still believing in the problem is that the person is irrational.

Suicide is the most efficient way of solving all one's problems
The first issue to resolve here is whether or not becoming non existent would actually solve any of their problems. But solving a problem is equivalent to eliminating the problem for then the problem no longer exists and hence the problem is solved. Moreover, the same logic applied to all their problems shows that they are solved if they cease existing entirely.

On the question of efficiency, the quickest method of solving problems is to stop believing in them. For most people, this is quite difficult and in some cases impossible. The typical method of solving problems by directly undertaking some action that alters or effects a set of circumstances directly related to the problem is inefficient as it cannot guarantee that that problem and others won't continuously reoccur in future. Suicide solves all problems in one swing and is therefore better for those capable of carrying it out. It should be noted here that the practical details of the matter are not overly important to the argument but rather that suicide is the best way if only in principle.

Miscellany
It is my contention here that the human condition logically leads to rational self destruction. Of course, a person might be interested in solving problems of other people but self destruction is the ultimate goal even if that only occurs after everyone else has been destroyed. One significant remaining point is whether or not problems can exist even if people don't. For example, one might consider the absence of happy people in the universe to be a problem.

As a thought experiment, consider the idea that the number of grains of dust on the moon being prime is a problem. Clearly, this isn't a problem for any currently living people but who's to say that it's not a problem independently of people. If this isn't a problem in general, then for what reason? Perhaps we could create someone who believes a priori that the number of dust grains on the moon shouldn't be prime and thus that the whole moon should be vacuumed clean to preclude this possibility.

The question here is this: what distinguishes the two cases of the problem of there being no happy people and the problem of the number of dust grains on the moon being prime? Humans generally seem to regard the addition of happy people to the world a good thing just as the hypothetical person above regards the creation of new people to ensure that the continued dust equilibrium a good thing. However, if we move outside of these respective frameworks, we see that one thing is a problem if and only if everything else is because those things were only ever problematic for people inside those systems; outside the scenarios are indistinguishable. So if no one exists then either everything is a problem or nothing is a problem. Only the latter makes any kind of sense so it is most reasonable to conclude that problems necessitate people and thus that the destruction of all people can solve all problems.

There are clear allusions to antinatalism above even though the argument only intends to address rational self destruction. In particular, in upholding antinatalism, humanity would ultimately obtain a solution to all its problems. Thus instead of becoming a pleasure/pain antinatalist or similar one could become a problem antinatalist instead. A key difference in motivating antinatalism this way instead of pleasure/pain is that the problems in defending an asymmetry disappear under the alternative approach of solving problems because there is nothing to act as a counter point to solving problems. No one is interested in 'unsolving anti-problems' whatever that might mean. A natural asymmetry thus arises. The probable disadvantage lies in its abstractness which might make it unappealing for anyone who dislikes that approach. Another minor disadvantage is that most people are not fond of killing themselves no matter how ultimately rational that may be.

23 comments:

  1. Suicide appears to be the logical conclusion if we contemplate the species as a whole and the horror of the human predicament: mortal creatures trapped in a godless universe etc. From the individual perspective, however, we operate by and large as hedonists, ie pleasure-seeking machines. The most prevalent attitude is that problems are circumvented/endured/dismissed in the quest for pleasure accumulation. Rational suicide arises only when the individual concludes that there exists no path to further pleasure accumulation and hence no point to the inevitable experience of pain, which is constant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And while we're at it, I have a modest proposal for ending the overpopulation problem in Ireland.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who are you trying to convince here?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Humans aren't rational creatures. Pure rationality has never been necessary to our survival. And if pure rationality hypothetically leads to people committing suicide, than we will never become a purely rational species.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wrooines, I'm not interested in convincing anyone, rather, I'm interested in determining the correctness of this argument.

    ReplyDelete
  6. [[beep boop]] Why do you humans not use their most basic logic in the actions of life [[beep boop]]

    ReplyDelete
  7. replace "problems" with "opportunities" and replace "suicide" with "living as long as possible"

    ReplyDelete
  8. In that case the dearth of opportunity is itself a problem which can be solved most efficiently in the manner described before.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Aren't you assuming that the non-existence of problems is desired over the experience of a problem having been eliminated in all cases? And are you taking the Lester Thurow position that it's irrational to care about what happens after your own death?

    ReplyDelete
  10. This solution completely defeats the purpose of solving one's problems in life. Your argument is incorrect, sir!

    ReplyDelete
  11. 06:53, I'm not assuming it and indeed, I don't regard either case as superior except in the sense that whenever one exists, the future non-emergence of problems could not be completely assured. However, I made the point that getting into a set of circumstances in which there are no more problems is difficult and essentially entails that one enters a state of nihilism. So under the reasoning of the argument, self destruction would be preferred.

    The argument in the syllogistic form initially presented assumes that it's irrational to care about the problems of others. This was done more for convenience than for anything else and I don't hold that either position is necessarily more rational. Because only is it irrational to care about others when you're alive than is it irrational to care about them after you die, it's not necessarily irrational that one cares that others will have problems after one dies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Which assumes, of course, that the complete non-existence of any kind of future problems is desired.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The desirability of future problems wouldn't preclude one from wanting to solve them. Those problems could solved most efficiently by solving them now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. But that's not what's desired.

    At least for me, problems like "I hate the cold" "I don't want this cough" or "I don't want to care what other people think of me" might be solved in a satisfactory fashion by any kind of process that would make me stop caring, but "I want to see this movie","I don't want my family to suffer after my death", and "I don't want my cat to starve" wouldn't be.

    I obviously wouldn't care afterwards, but the solution is unacceptable to me as I am now. You can call that irrational, but "A rational person should should solve their problems in the most efficient way" wasn't demonstrated by argument anyway, and conflating "best" and "most efficient" might be problematic.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In what way would a complete cessation of belief not solve all problems? The movie problem and any problems that might potentially be related to it (e.g. that a given hypothetical solution to it is unsatisfactory) only exist because you believe them to. There's no ontological property of the universe that forces one to conclude that anything is a problem.

    In the latter two cases, problems still might exist as far as your family and cat are concerned but as far as you're concerned, the problem is solved as it's no longer a problem for you. I'm perfectly aware of how macabre that sounds but any perceived or actual revulsion to this idea does nothing to refute the point that you would no longer have the problem. As a slight concession to this, I never argued that it was irrational to care about the problems of others, only that some solutions to those problems, regardless of who holds them, are more rational than others.

    I never made the notion of efficiency precise and I used it roughly interchangably with better on account that I don't believe this point to be critical to the argument. The point is that if one had the means to solve all problems quickly, easily, and permanently, then that would be more rational than any other solution.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Notice that I said "Unacceptable AS I AM NOW"(sorry for caps locking, but I can't italicize). I'm fully aware that the problems would cease to exist if I died but that's not the same as solving them and that matters to my current psychology.

    We could go on with this, but at this point, I think we're just going around in circles. Either I don't get something or you don't. Thanks for answering my questions and responding to my objections.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I appreciate your input. I'm not completely satisfied with this argument based on a number of points that still need clarification and formalisation but it's harder to do that without exposure to alternative perspectives.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It was already said that there is no ontological property of "problem" in the universe. Problems exist where "somethingness" exists and its perceived by the unfortunate bearers of its perception (consciousness).

    There cannot possibly be problems outside of consciousness.

    ReplyDelete
  19. And not only that, but I don't want to solve problems at all. For me, the existence of problems is a huge issue and even when I overcome a problem, I don't experience and pleasure from doing so and only regret the pain I experienced in the process.

    Try to argue against that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "the existence of problems is a huge issue" i.e. the existence of problems is itself a problem. Not experiencing pleasure or experiencing regret when solving a problem? Also a problem. Even if some solution to a problem would give rise to other problems, it doesn't mean that you don't still want to solve the initial problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the solution to all problems is cease creating the source of the problem - sentience. That is, to stop procreating.

      To address the topic of suicide: as a 2nd best alternative to not procreating, yes, its the most rational choice to do notwithstanding the condemnation its subjected to by the pro-lifers (i.e. running away from problems, nothing is permanent, bla bla).

      However, once one is alive, its extremely difficult to end one's life and it might cause problems for others (pain, etc) whereas if you cease from procreating, not only are you preventing a problem from forming (no mess to clean up if you don't create the mess) but you don't create problems for others (once they die, all problems will forever be gone).

      Suicide is very rational but a messy solution. Antinatalism is a very rational and clean solution.

      So, in essence, antinatalism > suicide > any other solution to problem

      Delete
  21. I made the distinction between solving one's own problems and solving all conceivable problems that might belong to anyone or anything. I argued that suicide was the most efficient way to solve one's own problems.

    Solving all problems of all things is considerably more difficult and is pragmatic as much as philosophical in nature. The extent to which antinatalism can solve problems depends on how widely this position is adopted. Clearly a few people being antinatalist is not going to do much any more than a few people committing suicide will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That much is true.
      Also, its impossible to ascertain if life would ever arise in some other corner of the universe (even if the universe is destroyed there is no guarantee that it won't reform and evolve life again).

      The first metaphysical impulse might just be indestructible.

      Delete