Another way to look at whether is extinction is fundamentally bad, is from the viewpoint of some (probably fictional) aliens watching us.
Let's say everyone decided end their own lives at the same time. Nobody is unhappy about it.
Is there any moral motive for aliens to intervene in a peaceful way? Perhaps discuss humanities possible futures with us. Give people a further interest in the future.
I am not asking whether it would be a moral imperative. Just would it be a moral good to convince people they have more happiness worth living for.
This plays out in a microcosm when someone sees a homeless person looking to jump off a bridge and intervenes to convince them not to. If they jump, they will die, but they won't feel any more pain - and obviously at the moment they are probably feeling a lot of pain or suicide wouldn't be the option they are seeking.
If you can lift a finger to same a person who wants to die, with their own cooperation, or a species, shouldn't you?
--
Another aspect is, a great deal of our happiness is due to sacrifices of those that came before us. And it mattered a lot to them that they survived and that we survived better.
Surely, if we have cooperated at all in taking from our parents, educators, mentors, and those that have worked hard for us, we owe them continued existence at some level. I am not saying that a terminally ill person can't morally choose to end their life.
But that happy healthy people should probably take into account that their happiness and healthiness came at a cost and for a reason they will negate if they choose to die out.
Comments
Another way to look at whether is extinction is fundamentally bad, is from the viewpoint of some (probably fictional) aliens watching us.
Let's say everyone decided end their own lives at the same time. Nobody is unhappy about it.
Is there any moral motive for aliens to intervene in a peaceful way? Perhaps discuss humanities possible futures with us. Give people a further interest in the future.
I am not asking whether it would be a moral imperative. Just would it be a moral good to convince people they have more happiness worth living for.
This plays out in a microcosm when someone sees a homeless person looking to jump off a bridge and intervenes to convince them not to. If they jump, they will die, but they won't feel any more pain - and obviously at the moment they are probably feeling a lot of pain or suicide wouldn't be the option they are seeking.
If you can lift a finger to same a person who wants to die, with their own cooperation, or a species, shouldn't you?
--
Another aspect is, a great deal of our happiness is due to sacrifices of those that came before us. And it mattered a lot to them that they survived and that we survived better.
Surely, if we have cooperated at all in taking from our parents, educators, mentors, and those that have worked hard for us, we owe them continued existence at some level. I am not saying that a terminally ill person can't morally choose to end their life.
But that happy healthy people should probably take into account that their happiness and healthiness came at a cost and for a reason they will negate if they choose to die out.