|
|
|
|
|
by kqr
1397 days ago
|
|
I am talking about death of the self. When crossing the street, there's a tiny risk of death, but a fairly good chance of a somewhat desirable outcome (getting to the other side.) If you considered your death to have negative infinity utility, and the desirable outcome to have finite positive utility, then you would opt to not cross the street ever, because negative infinity times small probability plus positive finite number times large probability is still negative infinity in total. Essentially, any time you're weighing up your options, and one of the outcomes has negative infinity utility with non-zero probability, then the outcome of that course of action also has negative infinity utility, the way these terms are usually defined. Thus, given the behaviour of most people, they do not think of their death has having negative infinity utility. |
|
Weighing probabilities is one thing, and assumes humans are capable of rationally weighing these outcomes (which isn't clear) but even then which part of our scientific understanding of death precludes death having negative infinite utility?
Still, this doesn't disprove death as negative infinite utility, as the risk of death also exists from _not_ crossing the street; one isn't preventing the risk of death by refusing to cross the street. In fact, staying permanently in one place, never crossing the street, and doing nothing indefinitely out of a fear of death, would simply guarantee one's death.
>and the desirable outcome to have finite positive utility
Extend the timescale and the desirable outcome leads to the same outcome as the "undesirable" one.