A truly sadistic choice

[ninetyfools]

Well the good choice would be to obviously sacrifice myself but why should I save the world just to be insulted by "Causing their miseries?" I pick choice 2. Also my worst nightmares will scare the living shit out of everyone no joke.

[Elite arbiter]

Ultimately, the problem here is that everyone is assuming there is any choice in the matter at all. Oldtrees sums it up best, the point is there's no way to verify his deal, so there's no way to find the truth value.

The nature of this worst nightmare renders the entity in a position of absolutely no credibility despite its intentions.

The simple fact is that if you choose B, he gets to point everyone at you and have them angry that you didn't sacrifice yourself. (Although it wouldn't be utilitarian at all because of the incapcity to see if he is telling the truth, in response to the person who said only "the most extreme utilitarians/crazy people" would try to physically harm a refuser of the deal.) And if you choose A, then the situation of being isolated from reality itself means you can never know if he is telling the truth. Even if you 'had' a way of checking 'reality' while in your nightmare, there is no way to prove that it isn't a 'brain in a vat world' you're viewing.

Further, if this is truly a 'almighty god', then he will already know what every answer you could give would be, and deliberately phrase the question to achieve whatever result it desires, in this case the worst possible result since it is malicious. Therefore, there never is a choice to begin with.

[OldTrees]

Ultimately, the problem here is that everyone is assuming there is any choice in the matter at all. Oldtrees sums it up best, the point is there's no way to verify his deal, so there's no way to find the truth value.

The nature of this worst nightmare renders the entity in a position of absolutely no credibility despite its intentions.

The simple fact is that if you choose B, he gets to point everyone at you and have them angry that you didn't sacrifice yourself. (Although it wouldn't be utilitarian at all because of the incapcity to see if he is telling the truth, in response to the person who said only "the most extreme utilitarians/crazy people" would try to physically harm a refuser of the deal.) And if you choose A, then the situation of being isolated from reality itself means you can never know if he is telling the truth. Even if you 'had' a way of checking 'reality' while in your nightmare, there is no way to prove that it isn't a 'brain in a vat world' you're viewing.

Further, if this is truly a 'almighty god', then he will already know what every answer you could give would be, and deliberately phrase the question to achieve whatever result it desires, in this case the worst possible result since it is malicious. Therefore, there never is a choice to begin with.

Close, but no cigar. It was not a comment about knowledge but rather a comment about belief, how that belief impacts incentives, how the impact on the incentives affects credibility and finally how the lack of credibility rationally affects your decision.

You can choose A or B. If you choose A then the entity will put you in your nightmare and then choose to follow through with there promise or not. Any nightmare would be made worse if you believed it was in vain. Therefore your worst nightmare would include you believing the entity lied and your action was in vain. This belief would exist regardless of whether the entity did or did not lie. Since you will believe the entity lied regardless of the entity's choice, the entity has NO incentive (that you could observe before making your choice) to keep their side of the bargain. Thus from your perspective before making your choice you would rationally conclude that your choice and the entity's choices were not connected in any manner that you can see. Thus your decision is independent of the entity's.

Do you choose to suffer your worst nightmare forever or not to suffer your worst nightmare forever?

Obviously option B is not only preferred but is morally correct under most moral systems given rational examination with your imperfect knowledge when making the decision.

[Tymalous]

I choose B because without suffering there would not be any progress.

[maverixk]

I choose B because without suffering there would not be any progress.

Now that is an ignorant statement. Progress is in no way dependent on suffering.
Sure, progress in a certain direction due to a certain event may require suffering, but progress as a whole does not.

[thanata]

A truly interesting dilemma with extreme options and bitter, ironic consequences...

As others have stated before, I believe the "sadistic god"'s credibility is pivotal in any reasoning.
First of all, what makes me believe in this god's ability to make the results and consequences a reality? If the given deity cannot condemn me to eternal suffering, free human beings from all which is perceived as suffering, control the beliefs of the entire human race, or inform every person of the bargain, the dilemma itself is nil. And even if the god is capable of bringing into action some but not all of the consequences, I would pick a "C) none of the above" just to see how much the god is capable of. In any way, I would be at the whim of what ever power the deity has anyways; as it doesn't seem too trustworthy.

But given the hypothetical situation that the sadistic god is capable of bring all and any of the consequences into reality, I would be left in a state of personal dissonance. The logical and self-preserving side of me would want to pick B, as I currently see neither wrongness nor goodness in this world, and "suffering" is a subjective perception most often thought to be only existent in certain organisms. As I know from experience that I am an organism capable of suffering, I would not think it would be prudent to put myself on the stake. I don't see many things wrong with a world that has suffering in it, either. But maybe it wouldn't be bad having a world without one, either. Even if "eternal suffering" means that I would forget the pain that occurred a millisecond ago and therefore have the suffering be new every moment, I feel that things won't matter after a while anyways, as I'm guessing the suffering is the only thing that will exist in my consciousness, whether it be physical or psychological. If my mind becomes fully immersed in such suffering, I assume I will be unable to make distinctions between what is pain and what is not. In the big picture, my personal suffering would matter very little, while my decision would have made a big change in the world, whether it be good or not. Maybe I would pick A, in fact.

We're all human beings, greatly dictated by emotion. I'm thinking the choice I would make in such a situation, A or B, would actually depend on small things such as mood and personal events of that day.

[Cheesy111]

I'd have to take the easy way out with choice B.  Even if I can be completely confident that the malicious god would follow through on their promise in the way I imagine it, there would be more total suffering in the world (infinite suffering > finite suffering) and I honestly believe that despite all of our problems, humanity is doing pretty well for themselves.  Plus I don't see choice A as being morally necessary or even preferable.

[Tymalous]

I choose B because without suffering there would not be any progress.

Now that is an ignorant statement. Progress is in no way dependent on suffering.
Sure, progress in a certain direction due to a certain event may require suffering, but progress as a whole does not.

What I meant is that without one of the opposite sides -good or evil- progress would stagger and we would be stuck in the same kind of time for a long time. Now evil does not necessarily mean suffering, but suffering is considered to be a big part of it. Just think about why the human race evolves -it's because we want to have a better situation each day. If the situation is already good, than why would we need progress?
Besides, for us humans it's easier to get progress from a catastrophe or a war than from order. Look at history and you will find a lot of examples for this statement.

[Nepycros]

I choose B because without suffering there would not be any progress.

Now that is an ignorant statement. Progress is in no way dependent on suffering.
Sure, progress in a certain direction due to a certain event may require suffering, but progress as a whole does not.

What I meant is that without one of the opposite sides -good or evil- progress would stagger and we would be stuck in the same kind of time for a long time. Now evil does not necessarily mean suffering, but suffering is considered to be a big part of it. Just think about why the human race evolves -it's because we want to have a better situation each day. If the situation is already good, than why would we need progress?
Besides, for us humans it's easier to get progress from a catastrophe or a war than from order. Look at history and you will find a lot of examples for this statement.

1. Don't bring up good and evil on this thread specific please. It has no relevance. See point 2.
2. Good and evil are subjective, and have little correlation to the desire for progress. See point 3.
3. The natural desire to reduce ignorance, the natural curiosity, and the natural interest in that which we don't understand is a very important part in terms of progress. Assuming that war leads to progress is a horrid remark.

[Tymalous]

I choose B because without suffering there would not be any progress.

Now that is an ignorant statement. Progress is in no way dependent on suffering.
Sure, progress in a certain direction due to a certain event may require suffering, but progress as a whole does not.

What I meant is that without one of the opposite sides -good or evil- progress would stagger and we would be stuck in the same kind of time for a long time. Now evil does not necessarily mean suffering, but suffering is considered to be a big part of it. Just think about why the human race evolves -it's because we want to have a better situation each day. If the situation is already good, than why would we need progress?
Besides, for us humans it's easier to get progress from a catastrophe or a war than from order. Look at history and you will find a lot of examples for this statement.

1. Don't bring up good and evil on this thread specific please. It has no relevance. See point 2.
2. Good and evil are subjective, and have little correlation to the desire for progress. See point 3.
3. The natural desire to reduce ignorance, the natural curiosity, and the natural interest in that which we don't understand is a very important part in terms of progress. Assuming that war leads to progress is a horrid remark.

1. You are right, should not have mentioned it.
2. See point 1.
3. Conflict does lead to progress. I hate to say it, but it is true. Please show me one example of how order did lead to more progress than conflict in history. Almost every great empire in the history had progress because of conflict. As soon as that conflict ended, the empire just collapsed by itself. Look at our time now, and the time before WW I & II. Without the wars we would still live in a feudal society. Now our society is slowly breaking down because there is no more real conflict, like the cold war. It is inevitable that there will be a catastrophe in the future that will (hopefully) change our view on society.

Btw, I know that I probably should not mention it, but look at all 'normal' sci-fi series, like star trek etc. They all live in a great society that was build after a war. That was build after people finally realized that having money is a bad idea (it was the reason for the war). Without a war they would not have come to that point.

 

[OldTrees]

You said that Suffering was a necessary condition of progress.
So far you have only given evidence of it being a sufficient condition of progress.
You might want to give evidence for your claim.

[Tymalous]

You said that Suffering was a necessary condition of progress.
So far you have only given evidence of it being a sufficient condition of progress.
You might want to give evidence for your claim.

All right, to be a little more clear, suffering is a necessary condition of progress for humanity at this moment. Why? Because in order to progress through order, humanity like it is now has to change. I mean, look around you, the only thing people think about is their own basic needs. Like the first crisis proved, this cannot or should not go on forever.  Do you think the people are ready for a society without suffering?
Imo, humanity needs a crisis in order to change in order to progress through order.