There will be suffering if it does, and suffering if it doesn't, and anyone who tries to stumble through which one is worse with some half-assed analysis and arrives at a conclusion with certainty is not someone whose thoughts I care about.
Prolonging suffering is worse than the acts required to end it. There is a good Mark Twain quote in regards to this (referencing the French revolution):
“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”
You're doing the whole "reasoning via cliche" thing again. Twain's talking about a two specific reigns of terror and is able to judge between them in that specific case, but it's not valid to infer that can always be generalized, or that steps to end pronlonged suffering won't lead to prolonged worse suffering.
There will be suffering if it does, and suffering if it doesn't, and anyone who tries to stumble through which one is worse with some half-assed analysis and arrives at a conclusion with certainty is not someone whose thoughts I care about.
Prolonging suffering is worse than the acts required to end it. There is a good Mark Twain quote in regards to this (referencing the French revolution):
“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”
You're doing the whole "reasoning via cliche" thing again. Twain's talking about a two specific reigns of terror and is able to judge between them in that specific case, but it's not valid to infer that can always be generalized, or that steps to end pronlonged suffering won't lead to prolonged worse suffering.