How Good is this answer from ChatGPT

[Gary Childress]

You said:
if people were immortal and could not possibly be killed. Would there need to be any ethics at all?

ChatGPT said:
That's a fascinating question! If people were immortal and couldn't be killed, it would dramatically change how we think about ethics. Ethics often deals with how we treat each other in terms of harm, suffering, justice, and fairness—things that are often driven by the idea that life is finite and vulnerable.

In a world where immortality eliminates the risk of death, some aspects of ethics, like the protection of life, might become less central. People might be less concerned with avoiding harm if they can’t die from it. However, there would likely still be a need for ethics in other areas:

Quality of Life: Even if people can't die, they could still experience suffering, pain, or emotional distress. So, there would likely be ethics related to reducing suffering, promoting happiness, and ensuring people are living well.

Social Harmony: Even if immortality removes the threat of death, people would still need to navigate issues like fairness, equality, and respect. For example, how do you balance resources if no one can die? What about disagreements over control or power—how would you prevent conflicts from becoming destructive?

Moral Growth and Meaning: If immortality meant you could never die, would people still strive for self-improvement, meaning, or moral growth? Ethics might evolve into focusing more on how to live well for endless years rather than focusing on avoiding harm or death.

So, while the core concerns of ethics like the preservation of life or preventing death might become irrelevant, other concerns around justice, fairness, and well-being would likely remain central. What do you think? Would immortality lead to a society where people abandon ethics altogether, or would it evolve into a new kind of ethical framework?

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c11db4-62d4 ... deba8794e5

Can anyone think of any variables that ChatGPT left out? Is it correct to think that if people were immortal there would still be a need for ethics?

Thoughts?

[Skepdick]

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c11db4-62d4 ... deba8794e5

Can anyone think of any variables that ChatGPT left out? Is it correct to think that if people were immortal there would still be a need for ethics?

Thoughts?

Wow! Immortal slaves! Don't even have to feed them.

Also, we could gather up all undesirable types and launch them into the Sun or something. They won't die

[Gary Childress]

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c11db4-62d4 ... deba8794e5

Can anyone think of any variables that ChatGPT left out? Is it correct to think that if people were immortal there would still be a need for ethics?

Thoughts?

Wow! Immortal slaves! Don't even have to feed them.

Also, we could gather up all undesirable types and launch them into the Sun or something. They won't die

I think that's a good point. There would still need to be ethics in order to ensure that individuals don't treat each other unfairly or use others as means to an end that would degrade the quality of life of others. I can't think of any reason why ethics would not exist if people were immortal. If no one else can think of any reason, then so far it seems to stand that immortality would not rule out the need for ethics.

[Flannel Jesus]

Is it correct to think that if people were immortal there would still be a need for ethics?

Thoughts?

Absolutely. Even with mortality, it's quite obvious surviving isn't the only thing people ethically care about. Why would those other things we care about disappear if we were granted immortality?

[FlashDangerpants]

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c11db4-62d4 ... deba8794e5

Can anyone think of any variables that ChatGPT left out? Is it correct to think that if people were immortal there would still be a need for ethics?

Thoughts?

The GPT answer is a reasonable starting point, opening with a summary and then following up with a short list of relevant points for further discussion.

It could have expanded the question instead: If there was no death, but there was still suffering, we would have moral concerns about suffering... so if we remove both death and suffering, would there be any morality? (And onward from there, at what point do we run out of concerns serious enough to manufacture a morality out of?) Perhaps, if there's neither death nor suffering in the world, then stealing would just be bad manners rather than criminal malice.

Or it could have pondered on other types of question that overlap with yours and wonder if there's a bigger thing that we are trying to find out. If you were completely alone on a desert island with no hope of discovery and no prospect of any human interaction ever again, would you be bound by any ethical duty, would any conception of of virtue or vice be relevant ever again? In other words perhaps, is there morality at all without society?

[seeds]

Can anyone think of any variables that ChatGPT left out? Is it correct to think that if people were immortal there would still be a need for ethics?

Thoughts?

I realize that the above scenario is just a thought experiment about ethics,...

...however, I can't get past the issue of how a human could be "immortal" after being fed into a woodchipper?
_______

[Gary Childress]

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c11db4-62d4 ... deba8794e5

Can anyone think of any variables that ChatGPT left out? Is it correct to think that if people were immortal there would still be a need for ethics?

Thoughts?

The GPT answer is a reasonable starting point, opening with a summary and then following up with a short list of relevant points for further discussion.

It could have expanded the question instead: If there was no death, but there was still suffering, we would have moral concerns about suffering... so if we remove both death and suffering, would there be any morality? (And onward from there, at what point do we run out of concerns serious enough to manufacture a morality out of?) Perhaps, if there's neither death nor suffering in the world, then stealing would just be bad manners rather than criminal malice.

Or it could have pondered on other types of question that overlap with yours and wonder if there's a bigger thing that we are trying to find out. If you were completely alone on a desert island with no hope of discovery and no prospect of any human interaction ever again, would you be bound by any ethical duty, would any conception of of virtue or vice be relevant ever again? In other words perhaps, is there morality at all without society?

Excellent points! I hadn't thought of those.

[Veritas Aequitas]

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c11db4-62d4 ... deba8794e5

Can anyone think of any variables that ChatGPT left out? Is it correct to think that if people were immortal there would still be a need for ethics?

Thoughts?

Where there is an 'if', then anything goes, but the following need to be considered [ChatGpt should have raised them];

1. Immortality of the soul and or immortality of the physical self on Earth.
Immortality of the physical self is not practical because the Earth has limited space and resources to support immortal physical bodies.

2. There is a need to define 'what is ethics' without consideration for killing of humans in the ethical sense.
If whatever is defined [to be exhaustive] as ethics exist as real, e.g. no violence, harm, torture, rapes, slavery, and the like, then there will still be a need for ethics as defined.
If ethics is confined only to 'no killing of humans' then, there is no need for ethics because when humans are immortal, killing is moot.

3. I believe ethics should be independent from virtues which is very extensive, e.g. honesty, truthful, kind, etc. If virtue is part of ethics, then there is a need for ethics even if humans are immortal.

4. If humans are immortal, then we are in a cartoon-world where whatever happened [e.g. one is smashed or cut into a thousand pieces], humans can be brought back to life.