>

If preventing most suffering requires that some individuals suffer, so be it. Then suffering can be meaningful. But it is still the ultimate goal.
/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. >


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. >

Killing everyone instantly would technically work for the sake of this argument.
Although, killing 100% of all human beings in the entire universe is also highly unlikely, before the universe dies naturally. The chance to miss two human beings that can procreate might be higher than expected. Even with developing warfare, when humans exist in other parts of the universe that are unreachable due to the speed of light limitation.
So simply killing everyone is probably not a valid option. Understanding the brains chemistry and achieving a state of being without suffering seems more realistic in my opinion. >


Understanding the brains chemistry and achieving a state of being without suffering seems more realistic in my opinion.

What we call "suffering" is intrinsically tied to human condition. For a working definition, we can define it as pain or deprivation over a certain threshold. To get rid of it would likely 1) render humans incapable of performing actions suitable for survival on their own, and 2) require a wide-reaching program to modify every human. It would probably be much easier to build a lot of nukes and carpet the planet. >

Maybe, but we can’t know for certain.
Even if we kill everyone, there is a chance that evolution produces new humans or beings capable of suffering.
It might be better to control life than to destroy it and risk rebirth so to speak. >

I'm saying it's even less possible to modify all beings so they don't feel suffering. If you can't kill humans on the other side of the galaxy, how exactly are you going to get them to stop suffering? In contrast, it's pretty easy to kill them. >

“In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth — only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.”
— C.S. Lewis >

seems pretty empty; the best we can do is "prevent suffering?"  sometimes suffering can be meaningful, we can grow as people from suffering, we can overcome suffering and grow stronger in the doing.    
if all we're doing is the least amount possible so the least amount of people feel the least amount of suffering, we'll be creating a static world as dead as when the last stars burn out  
what about striving towards building something greater?  or becoming someone greater?