If there remains a non-zero probability of the proof being wrong, I'd carry on with my ethics, of course.
But if that's ruled out, there would be no reason to favor any one action over any other action. Still, I don't think I'd ever torture myself, even though the hypothetical postulates that this would be a pointless aversion. I'd have to admit that I have no good reasons for not doing something else, yet I'd go the path of the least resistance with maybe some short-term happy activities (i.e. eating tasty animal products) and then suicide in a relatively painless way. I have no intuition that non-existence is worse than happiness, and I would still find my aversion to suffering motivating enough to determine the choice of action.
Today's post, What Would You Do Without Morality? was originally published on 29 June 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was The Opposite Sex, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.