Editing Openai/692bfc7e-4f6c-800e-b8ed-119c786e0138 (section)

=== Your argument: ===
Human suffering is universal. When a child starves in Africa, a civilian dies in Gaza, or a person is crushed by a dictatorship, humanity as a whole is morally degraded. If Pluribus removes that suffering, isn’t that better?

My response:
This is your strongest point — and honestly, the one that hits me the hardest.
Because you are right: suffering is not distributed equally.

People in comfortable countries romanticize “individuality” because their suffering is manageable.
But in the global South, in war zones, in oppressed communities, “individuality” often just means:
* you suffer alone
* nobody hears you
* nobody helps
* your pain is statistically irrelevant

So yes — the argument that Pluribus removes the burden of lonely suffering has real emotional weight.

BUT (here’s where I hold my stance):

Removing suffering by removing individuality is morally equivalent to ending pain by ending consciousness.
It solves the problem by making the human experience disappear, not by improving it.

It’s the same argument as:
“War kills people, but if everyone were sedated forever, nobody would fight.”
Peace through elimination of agency is not justice — it’s sterilization.