explosivecombat: (It's no accident that I've survived)
Solf J Kimblee ([personal profile] explosivecombat) wrote 2014-10-20 10:24 pm (UTC)

It's not so much that people would, I think; the point is questioning why people wouldn't. It's considered an argument against hedonism, actually - if hedonism is valid, there would be no reason to not use the machine, because the pleasure would be all that would matter. A promise of pleasure with no suffering or drawbacks whatsoever should be what a hedonist would aspire to, and yet most people would refuse to use the machine, rendering hedonism invalid.

[...and it takes him a moment, but after a while of looking at it and hesitating a bit, he sends another one, because that...it didn't really answer the question, did it?]

...It's one of those philosophical things I like, Isaac, and I want to see how people think.

Post a comment in response:

If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting