>


Also, you would kill all joy.

So? If the only point is to prevent suffering, the fact that there would be no joy is irrelevant. It is likely that any given human will suffer. Therefore, if the only morally relevant goal is to prevent suffering, the most logical course of action is to simply kill everyone instantly. The fact that it might be possible to live without any suffering doesn't make life superior- there's still a chance that someone might suffer, and if the only thing that matters is preventing suffering, they're still better off dead to avoid that possibility.
/u/MrMarkson (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

If the meaning of life is to prevent suffering, then the logical course of action is to kill everyone to prevent any further suffering. There is no life without suffering, but without life, there is no suffering.
The meaning of life is simply to live, keep on living, and continue life beyond one's self by reproducing and helping others. >

Not necessarily, when a mode of being without suffering is achievable. 
Also, you would kill all joy.