This is a setup for my response to Open Problems in Utilitarianism. I'll be making an actual response to that when I get a bit more time.

Hmmmm okay. Before I start this I think I need to give some back ground information on other thoughts I've had and why I'm ignorant when it comes to terminology and some other utilitarian philosophies.

I'm dyslexic, and not just in a way most people wrongly assume it affects me. Reading and writing have, especially in the past, been extremely hard for me. I consider myself to be extremely lucky I live in the age of the internet. I am exposed to text much more often then I other wise would have been, giving me much needed practice, and spell check is a necessity for me.

However, even with this help I read very slow, I'd say I take double or even triple as long as others to read some text, because of this one way communication (reading) is too boring for me. Not only that but I when I run into a flaw or some thing I don't understand in some ones writing my mind wont let me move on till they teach me better or I correct them.

The negative sides of this are that I'm extremely ignorant on some needed background information. The positive is I think it gives me often a unique perspective on issues.

One of these was some thing I came up with that I'm sure existed before I thought of it, "survivalism". I did some (5 minutes worth, so not much) research on it and found this. It's kind of similar to my thoughts but not the same. I don't know if I place this above utilitarianism or because of utilitarianism I came up with it.

The way it works is such, there are a set of rules. These rules are not final they just serve to direct. Reality is unpredictable (for now) and thus too many different situations can occur to claim to know a set of rules that MUST always be followed.

The rules: (The reverse for all is true too. i.e. If an action exists to prevent life from ending it should be taken)

1. No action can be taken to end life (not a life, but all life).
2. No action can be taken to end sentient life.
3. No action can be taken to end utilitarianism.
4. No action can be taken to end humanity (or our descendants).
5. No action can be taken to end happiness.

After this, smaller more common goals are address, obviously I can't list every goal for happiness in every organism.

Reasoning:

Life that would prefer to die than to suffer will die, life that would prefer to suffer than die will live. These natural laws determine that life is more important (not necessarily that a life is more important, but that life on a whole is). Pain exists to protect life, this makes survival more important.

This isn't saying that protecting your self is the most important thing. If organism A and B are genetically fairly similar and A dies protecting B, a genetic makeup similar to A's survives (this genetic makeup includes the self sacrificing act). This is how self sacrifice works in a evolutionary setting (it also explains why people with a gay gene (if such a thing exists) don't just die out).

I've gone a step further and decided that to me, an idea that appeals to me is more important than my specific makeup. Utilitarianism to me is more important than humanity for a few reasons.

If a sentient utilitarian species other than humanity existed its survival would take priority over non-utilitarian humans. That said I think human survival takes priority over that of other animals (not to dismiss the worth of these animals, also please note that I said survival, not pleasure). The reasoning for this goes some what like this:

Given a choice for the survival of a non-utilitarian and a utilitarian the utilitarian should be picked because he/she is more likely to do more good for others there after. This is excluding other variables of course. For example if the non-utilitarian had a very unique and needed skill set that would do more good than the utilitarian, the non-utilitarian should be picked.

Like I said;

These rules are not final they just serve to direct. Reality is unpredictable (for now) and thus too many different situations can occur to claim to know a set of rules that MUST always be followed.

But it seems to be common sense that a non-human sentient utilitarian species would do more good than non-utilitarian humanity.

More practice meaning:

The purpose of the 1st rule is to basically just state that a doomsday device (meant to destroy all life) is out of the question. I'd say this can be applied to mass use of nuclear weapons.

The 2nd and 4th one may seem fairly pointless, but its purpose is that if humanities end is unpreventable we shouldn't destroy the chance for more sentient species to evolve in-order to draw out our existence a little longer. This is a bit flawed because our extinction and that of all life seems to be fairly certain eventually. Why bother trying to survive at all then? I came up with, because for now the chance of survival remains so it should be attempted for the same reason as why life is more important than preventing pain (I want to stress again that I mean the survival of the species, not of individuals). The fact of this natural law is good enough for me.

Life that would prefer to die than to suffer will die, life that would prefer to suffer than die will live.

The 3rd law is only put in there if there is another utilitarian sentient species, so no reason to worry about that right now.

The 5th law returns to more standard utilitarian philosophies. Greatest happiness for the greatest number etc, etc.

If a sentient utilitarian species other than humanity existed its survival would take priority over non-utilitarian humans. That said I think human survival takes priority over that of other animals (not to dismiss the worth of these animals, also please note that I said survival, not pleasure). [...] Given a choice for the survival of a non-utilitarian and a utilitarian the utilitarian should be picked because he/she is more likely to do more good for others there after.

Interestingly, this is one of the self-interested reasons I wanted to be a utilitarian -- make it more likely that other utilitarians would want to save my life, and be more favorably picked up for some transhumanism.

That being said, though, I'm interested in how this mandatory-human-survival should work out. Specifically...

1.) Imagine it is conclusively proven that the continuation of the human species will result in less total happiness across the universe (or multiverse, what not) than if humanity were extinguished. Is it still imperative that human survival be secured?

2.) Imagine that the only way to preserve humanity is to cause massive amounts of suffering to every human. Is it still imperative that human survival be secured?

3.) Imagine that the only way to bring about an ideally utilitarian posthuman species would be to extinguish humanity. Is it still imperative that human survival be secured?

1.) Imagine it is conclusively proven that the continuation of the human species will result in less total happiness across the universe (or multiverse, what not) than if humanity were extinguished. Is it still imperative that human survival be secured?

Depends, like I said, those are guide lines. Is humanity the only "sentient" species? Total happiness for that time period or all time?

2.) Imagine that the only way to preserve humanity is to cause massive amounts of suffering to every human. Is it still imperative that human survival be secured?

I think at this point (or any point for that matter) it should be a choice of the individual. The simple answer for the species as a whole is yes.

3.) Imagine that the only way to bring about an ideally utilitarian posthuman species would be to extinguish humanity. Is it still imperative that human survival be secured?

Simple answer again; no. The long answer would need answers to many questions. How guarantied is the "bringing about" part of this species, how guarantied is the "ideally utilitarian" part of it, and many other questions.

Nap wrote:Is humanity the only "sentient" species? Total happiness for that time period or all time?

In my first dilemma, I think humanity being the only sentient species is irrelevant, and I meant total happiness over all time.

Nap wrote:How guarantied is the "bringing about" part of this species, how guarantied is the "ideally utilitarian" part of it, and many other questions.

In the third dilemma, I meant the "bringing about" would be 100% guaranteed and they would be 100% ideally utilitarian.

My general point is that there are odd instances where survivalism-utilitarianism doesn't match up with regular utilitarianism, but I presume you are fine with that. I suppose now I'm just curious what motivates you to patch utilitarianism in this way. (Not that there's anything meta-ethically wrong with doing so.)

In my first dilemma, I think humanity being the only sentient species is irrelevant, and I meant total happiness over all time.

Sentient matters for a few reasons. Sentient species are more likely to survive and spread life to more places, and in general I'd say for now sentient species feel more extreme pain and pleasure.

The reason for this is that if you just backtrack more and more eventually you end up with a species that doesn't feel either (bacteria for example).

It seems if you hurt a human it'd create more over all pain than hurting a snake for example. A human can remember the pain for longer (maybe) and reflect on it.

I don't like questions like this, they are too detached from reality, like I said, the point of pain if to ensure survival. If some thing exists that would prefer to die than suffer it will probably die. This seems to be a natural law. It's not really up to us to determine/change/affect this. I just go with it to find the best way to live. If this is a law, than we might as well try to reduce the suffering and increase the pleasure alone the way.

I think this natural law is stronger than gravity (for example) we can learn about gravity and learn to use/effect it (build a ship that can escape Earths orbit, or some thing as simple as jumping). But how do yo create a system where organisms that would chose death over pain will exist in more predominant numbers, for longer periods of time, than those that would chose pain if both groups experience equal pain severities at equal time?

We shouldn't do things that go against these forces (for now) because we can't win. Those humans that think that their life creates more pain than happiness and think that creating the most happiness is the most important thing are more likely to end their life or even try to end the life of their species. This makes no sense logically. The simpler one to explain is the one that ends his own life. This person would no longer exist and the chance of genes like his to continue is diminished. This would create more room for other humans without that gene (those genes, memes), his decision to kill himself just made it worse for his goal. His goal being reduce pain that humans are responsible for.

But like I said, these questions are too far from reality. It's not even possible to know any one thing for sure so to claim to know that

Imagine it is conclusively proven that the continuation of the human species will result in less total happiness across the universe (or multiverse, what not) than if humanity were extinguished.

for sure, it's ridiculous for obvious reasons. This is implied in our conversation tho. So why am I mentioning it? Because even if its ridiculous it matters when people pick mindsets. The mindset that humans might reduce total happiness for ever is impractical.

If it were true then I guess humanities survival goes against the greater good, but I see almost no reality where making decisions based on that info makes any sense.

In the third dilemma, I meant the "bringing about" would be 100% guaranteed and they would be 100% ideally utilitarian.

My general point is that there are odd instances where survivalism-utilitarianism doesn't match up with regular utilitarianism, but I presume you are fine with that. I suppose now I'm just curious what motivates you to patch utilitarianism in this way. (Not that there's anything meta-ethically wrong with doing so.)

If it was 100% for both then its best to extinguish humanity. But you can't make that guaranty (ever). So it doesn't matter much to me.

It's mainly that natural law I talked about. I'm not saying I'd choose endless pain over death, but if I did I'd live on after others died off. This would only leave me left to suffer. Might as well reduce or maybe even stop my suffering.

I patch it because regular utilitarianism doesn't account for that part of reality, in the end it would create more pain and not the over all best good.