This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ElwoodBlues · M
Depends on the circumstances. For example, there are a few auto accidents where a person is thrown clear of a wreck, and saved by not wearing seatbelts. That's the "nothing" in this example. And there are cases where the wearing of seatbelts killed a person.
However, there are far far far more accidents where seatbelts SAVE people; where seatbelts prevent death and/or serious injury.
In this example, even though "something" (wearing seatbelts) has harmed a few people, "nothing" (not wearing seatbelts) has harmed far far more.
However, there are far far far more accidents where seatbelts SAVE people; where seatbelts prevent death and/or serious injury.
In this example, even though "something" (wearing seatbelts) has harmed a few people, "nothing" (not wearing seatbelts) has harmed far far more.
Maya15 · F
@ElwoodBlues but if the person was never born they could never have been harmed. nothing is low risk.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Maya15 · F
@ElwoodBlues no that's not the same thing. i don't support something because there is unacceptable suffering for some. am i ok with something existing if it means that suffering exists? no, i can't justify it. it's not a good enough excuse.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Maya15 As you yourself said, there is always risk of suffering. With every alternative, suffering is possible. So, in my opinion, the choice is what will minimize the overall suffering. In the case of seatbelts, wearing them will minimize overall suffering, and doing nothing with them will increase suffering.
Maya15 · F
@ElwoodBlues no suffering isn't possible if there is nothing.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Maya15 There's only nothing if we're all dead. Suffering isn't possible ONLY if there is no life at all.
Maya15 · F
@ElwoodBlues 💣time travel. blow up big bang before it happens. tada.