Serious Philosophical Question

[TheGreatErenan]

Hi. I have a question for you, and I would really, really appreciate an honest and serious response. I love jokes and humor and all that, and I am often guilty of giving non-serious responses to serious questions, but I am asking this question for a real purpose related to research, so if you don't mind, I'd really appreciate your honest response.

Question:

Suppose a villain has captured you and gives you a choice between the following two scenarios:

1. Have your brain completely reprogrammed so that all of your attitudes, emotions, memories, general desires, goals, personality traits, mental skills, etc. are wiped out and replaced with completely new ones.
2. Gamble your life on some random outcome N for which you have a positive non-zero chance of being released unharmed and a positive non-zero chance of being killed painlessly.

What is your response to the villain?

[Mag!cGuy]

2. What's the purpose of having back a life if you aren't yourself anymore. ^^

If I had chances to be killed painfully and not painlessly, I'd have hesited more though.

[joelduque]

If given the choice, I would not choose. Why would I pick an option with a not so acceptable component?

[Chemoeum]

Well , let's see... For choice 1, it's like a 0% chance of keeping your normal, but a 100% chance of actually being alive. Choice 2, I'd die or I'd live my same life I have now.

So, choice 1 suggests that if I have a life now, unhappy or successful, I'd have another go to my life. I could do more good into the world, or completely the opposite. Maybe even neutral. An example scenario, I could have a good life with a family, and my mind goes totally different. My family may not get used to the new me, and I would not know them the same way I did in my other me. What's the point of living anymore if you cannot live it anymore? Another scenario, you may end up with a better life in another way, being able to accomplish many great things for mankind. Or another scenario, you could develop a much worse life, for much of mankind and yourself. What if others knew you as a bad person in your old you but you become a good person, and no one gave you that chance to let them see that?

So, no.

I could gamble on my life painlessly if I wanted to. The last thing I want now is pain. Hmm...

Now that I think about it, why do we live? If we are doing good for man, why are we even doing it? Why does life need to be good or bad? There's no point into it except for the want to actually do it. Everything is literally based on want. It's weird.

#SeriousPhilosophicalChoice2

---

(02-05-2014 06:56 AM)joelduque Wrote:  If given the choice, I would not choose. Why would I pick an option with a not so acceptable component?

(02-05-2014 04:00 AM)TheGreatErenan Wrote:  ... but I am asking this question for a real purpose related to research, so if you don't mind, I'd really appreciate your honest response.

[TheGreatErenan]

(02-05-2014 07:04 AM)Chemoeum Wrote:  Everything is literally based on want. It's weird.

How very Humean of you.

(02-05-2014 07:04 AM)Chemoeum Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 06:56 AM)joelduque Wrote:  If given the choice, I would not choose. Why would I pick an option with a not so acceptable component?

(02-05-2014 04:00 AM)TheGreatErenan Wrote:  ... but I am asking this question for a real purpose related to research, so if you don't mind, I'd really appreciate your honest response.

If this is joelduque's honest response, then it is indeed valuable to me.

[[PETA] Doodat]

Is choice one completely random attitudes, or does the villain just pick them? Regardless of that, I would still pick 2.

[TheGreatErenan]

Yeah, to clarify option 1, the new set of mental characteristics should be assumed to be a relatively normal collection of personality traits. That is, you can assume your body will not be inhabited by a perfectly kind, rational, friendly, likable super-genius, and it also will not be inhabited by a mute psychopath who likes to eat kittens or something like that.

---

By the way, my own answer to the question is that my choice depends on the likelihood of death in option 2. If I am very likely to die, I'd pick option 1. If I am very likely to survive, I'd pick option 2. Somewhere in the middle is a point where I'd be roughly equally comfortable with either option, but I'm not sure exactly where that point is.

But the real answer is that first, I'd try to stall and talk the villain out of it for as long as I can, but if he absolutely forced me to pick an option then I'd choose as described above.

[TheUberKid]

Choice 2. A painless death is better than mind reprogramming.

[TheGoldenGriffin]

Choice one: I read Flowers For Algernon and you die at the end so no
Choice two: atleast i get a chance of surviving in this choice

[awpertunity]

Choice 2 no matter what. even if it's a 0.1% chance of surviving.

As far as I'm concerned the first option is absolutely no different than a painless death to me.