Well, I am new here, and I suppose it was a slightly presumptive of me to say that. I was just trying to introduce myself with a few of the thoughts I've had while reading here.
To attempt to clarify, I think that this story is rather like the fable of the Dragon-Tyrant. To live a life with even the faintest hint of displeasure is a horrific crime, the thought goes. I am under the impression that most people here operate with some sort of utilitarianist philosophy. This to me seems to imply that unless one declares that there is no objective state for which utilitarianism is to be directed towards, humanity in this example is wrong. (In case someone is making the distinction between ethics and morals, as an engineer, it doesn't strike me as important.)
To the issue of akrasia, I don't see this as a case. My own judgement says that a life like theirs is vapid and devoid of meaning. Fighting to the death against one's own best judgement probably isn't rare either; I expect many, many soldiers have died fighting wars they despised, and who had options other than fighting them. In effect, I feel like this is multiplication by zero, and add infinity. You have more at the end; you're just no longer the unique complex individual you were, and I could not bear to submit to that.
To live a life with even the faintest hint of displeasure is a horrific crime, the thought goes. I am under the impression that most people here operate with some sort of utilitarianist philosophy. This to me seems to imply that unless one declares that there is no objective state for which utilitarianism is to be directed towards, humanity in this example is wrong.
The general thrust of the Superhappy segments of Three Worlds Collide seems to be that simple utilitarian schemas based on subjective happiness or pleasure are insufficient to describe human ... (read more)
It really does seem like either you don't really believe that the assimilation ending is optimal and you prefer the true ending, or you are suffering from akrasia by fighting against it despite believing that it is. You haven't really explained why it could be anything else.
4KPier
I think the confusion comes from what you mean by "utilitarian." The whole point of Three Worlds Collide (well, one of the points), is that human preferences are not for happiness alone; the things we value include a life that's not "vapid and devoid of meaning", even if it's happy! That's why (to the extent we have to pick labels) I am a preference utilitarian, which seems to be the most common ethical philosophy I've encountered here (we'll know more when Yvain's survey comes out). If you prefer not to be a Superhappy, then preference utilitarianism says you shouldn't be one.
When you catch yourself saying "the right thing is X, but the world I'd actually want to live in is Y," be careful - a world that's actually optimal would probably be one you want to live in.