End of the world (philosophy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The end of the world may be precipitated by philosophy according to the (philosopher) John Leslie in his book "The end of the world". Other philosophers have predicted that ideas may threaten society (such as the "God is dead"), but Leslie has spelt out the ways in which he thinks extinction might be the result. Under "Risks from philosophy" in the introduction to The end of the world (page 10) he lists the following:

  1. Threats from religiosity or bad philosophy; if a leader became convinced that his god would protect his people then his judgment might deteriorate to the point of causing human extinction.
  2. Schopenhauer wrote that the planet would be better lifeless because human evil is irresolvable. If this became a common objective, "pessimism" could kill us.
  3. Relativism might strip away the social contract, causing the end of civilization. Philosophical doctrines such as Emotivism, and Prescriptivism are considered a threat because the idea that there are no moral absolutes will decay the laws which remain.
  4. Lowest common denominator utilitarianism – which he calls the philosophy of “Negative utilitarianism”: If the minimax principle of justice is applied strictly it may be discovered that no more children should be born.
  5. If the unborn have no rights, and their existence is given zero weight in the welfare economics “objective function” then it may prove more efficient to cease having children, (as this may maximize utility even in a conventional utilitarian framework).
  6. The philosophy of “inalienable rights” and deontology may prevent society from infringing on the freedom of its members in order to prevent the destruction of human life.
  7. Philosophers may have relied too heavily on the Prisoner's dilemma and failed to prevent mutually assured destruction.
  8. Justice in the sense of punishing transgressions can be a priority in ethics, but this could trigger a vicious cycle of tit-for-tat escalations, and provide a rationale for avenging the destruction of one half of the world by destroying the other.

[edit] See also