Here's a good philosophical question (I took it from a philosophy podcast):
Suppose there existed a pill that allowed you to live forever, but you had to take it everyday. (Otherwise you'll die within 24 hours of stopping.) Would you take it?
It begs the question do you really want to live forever or do you just don't want to die?
In a crucial way “We” do live forever and don’t need pills. “We” keep shedding our old worn out bodies and getting new ones.
If one of the old bodies refuses to die is it going to be productive and carry its own weight or is going to be a burden to other bodies? Maybe it ought to get the hell out of the way and make room.
The pill itself does not provide immortality, the decision to take it everyday does. The question would be more interesting if you had to decide on taking one pill to live forever. That's a whole different story....
I think that is interesting because ultimately you would be in control of your own end. I am not sure. I am curious enough to want to see the future but I am not sure I could endure the pain of seeing my loved ones die. I can't even bring myself to think about it. If I could live basically as well as I do now then yes. Another consideration is how would I afford it? I have worked out that with the pension pots I have, I have enough money for 20 years after I retire. There are too many varibles to consider. So lets say I'll stick with my 3 score years and 10!
I want to visualise death as switching off a light switch, so this would give me that degree of control. My father's death was unexpected and instantaneous but of course we cannot choose.
This question is hypothetical...we know there is no such pill and therefore we can never know how we would act should there ever be one. How we think we may act is no accurate indicator of how we would act when faced with a reality. Our knowledge that this pill does not in fact exist influences our answer to the question.
@Matias We can never really know how we will react until we are at the moment of actual decision.
I don't think that such questions are about making a perfect prediction of your actions but about trying to think through a certain scenario. It's about suspension of disbelief. Many ethical questions could also be shrugged away like this. For instance the question: "How would you feel if you were a homeless person?" Would you just say "I don't like that question, because I am not a homeless person"? I hope not.
@Dietl I didn’t say I didn’t like the question, but that any answer I gave would only be how I feel when not actually in the reality. I could have said how I think I might act but I was pointing out that that may not in fact be how I would act when faced with the reality of a pill being available. Using the example of homelessness is a spurious argument as it is an actual reality for too many people, sadly, and far from being a hypothesis, therefore as a fellow human I can empathise with that situation and put myself into the shoes of someone in that position. To compare your “philosophical” pill scenario with homelessness is a complete red herring .
@Marionville
Of course no analogy is perfect but in both situations you have to put yourself in a situation you are not currently in. That's not a red herring.
@Dietl It is not a direct comparison, let’s just agree to disagree and not flog a dead horse.
Okay
@Marionville Are you saying that there is no possible preparation for that moment? If everyone talked openly about death e.g in death cafes would that not help in some way that is not apparent to you at the moment?
@Mcflewster I don’t understand your question. I talk openly about death and am not adverse to any discussions, but talking about a non existent pill that would let us live forever is not something I would waste time on as it’s fantasy. Death cafes....maybe others would like the idea....not anything I have given any thought to.
@Marionville I suppose neither of us has any good access to them but I like the idea.