3 ms·

Yes, it would be best (in the sense of "least bad") if no sentient being existed at all. Whether already existing people like life is like asking whether alrea

Yes, it would be best (in the sense of "least bad") if no sentient being existed at all. Whether already existing people like life is like asking whether already addicted people like heroin. You can't use the result to justify forcibly addicting people to heroin.

alexophile 16y ago
So you rationally came to the conclusion that life is suffering, and rationally determined that suffering is bad and should be ended, but realize your own reluctance to end such suffering. What, then, do you think to be more likely: you are rational about all these things up until what, from this view, seems like an arbitrary point; or there's another piece to the puzzle - a sort of joy in realizing the absurdity of this existence and seeking contentment in spite of it? Disclaimer: you're free to believe what you want, and it's neither my business nor my concern whether or not you pass on your particular genes, I just can't resist this discussion. Related reading if you're interested: Albert Camus (The Stranger, The Myth of Sisyphus), Sartre (Nausea, Being and Nothingness)
- koningrobot 16y ago
  The point is not arbitrary because it is my life and I get to choose what I do with it. I do seek contentment in spite of it, and I find it in "the zone". But this is irrelevant. You say it's not your business whether or not I pass on my genes. Is it also not your business whether or not I murder somebody you do not know? Creating new persons is not something to be taken lightly, it's at least up there with murder because birth entails death. By all means realize the absurdity and seek contentment, just don't force others into having to come the same long, stressful way to this revelation.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - ckuehne 16y ago
    If it is the "forcing others" part that bothers you I can reassure you: you don't force anyone to live by procreating. Simply, because there is no one you could force. Before you were born (or conceived for that matter) you did not exist. So your parents did not force you to anything. By the time you existed and could be asked you “choose to stay alive” because it is your “life after all”.
    - koningrobot 16y ago
      No, you have it precisely the wrong way around. The harm done by birth is harm because the victim is still around to suffer it. Compare this to the harm done by death, where there is no such victim anymore. As I said before, the question of whether I should stay alive even if I don't think it is worth it is way more complicated than the question of whether new lives should be begun. One complication is that suicide causes non-negligible stress for both the suicide and their surroundings.
      - ckuehne 16y ago
        I think your reasoning is flawed both on a practical and on the philosophical level. Let me first tackle the philosophical level: First, you insist on the impractical notion that it is only the suffering that counts and must be reduced no matter what. Being a intelligent fella you realize that the consequence would be the annihilation of all sentient life including your own. Since presumably you realize the absurd notion of this consequence you try to reclaim the validity of your argument by arguing that “not forcing others” is another crucial prerequisite in your ethic. (Regarding your own suffering and the ending of it you simply declare that “life is complicated”. Aha, so much for consistency. (By all means: be inconsistent in that case.)) But strictly speaking, you cannot force life on someone because that someone does not exist before she is alive. You can see it in your own comments. You talk about “forcing life on newborns”. But this is not true. Before they were alive they simply were not there. By definition you cannot force something that does not exist. Again: I can force you to give me your money but I cannot force something nonexistent to do anything. So you are back to square one: total annihilation of all life. The same reasoning applies to your heroin addiction analogy by the way: The alternatives are not heroin vs. no heroin but heroin addiction vs. death. You see, you can without a doubt compare a person that is heroin addicted to one that is not and conclude the the non-addict is for some reasonable metric better off. But you cannot compare a person who is alive with something that does not exist. It doesn’t make any sense. The philosophical nitpicking aside, what really strikes me as odd is your sole focus on suffering. In your picture you also “force the newborn” with high probability to having two legs, in- and exhaling air, and opening a bank account before her 30th birthday. And who likes that? But wouldn’t it be much more reasonable, as other commenters have pointed out, to account for more than just the suffering in the calculation whether a life is worth living? When you are in need for something, lets say food, do you only take into account the costs or do you compare the benefit you get from the food vs. its costs (the costs being the suffering in this analogy)? I mean, as a “life addict” yourself you realize that the suffering is sometimes not everything that counts especially when it is outweighed by the benefits you have by being alive. Don’t get me wrong: of course suffering is bad. But as you said yourself “life is complicated” and often you have to take more into account than just one single variable like suffering or the opening of a bank account. It is of course your choice whether you procreate or not. But your argument against it might not be as conclusive as you might think.

alexophile 16y ago

So you rationally came to the conclusion that life is suffering, and rationally determined that suffering is bad and should be ended, but realize your own reluctance to end such suffering. What, then, do you think to be more likely: you are rational about all these things up until what, from this view, seems like an arbitrary point; or there's another piece to the puzzle - a sort of joy in realizing the absurdity of this existence and seeking contentment in spite of it? Disclaimer: you're free to believe what you want, and it's neither my business nor my concern whether or not you pass on your particular genes, I just can't resist this discussion. Related reading if you're interested: Albert Camus (The Stranger, The Myth of Sisyphus), Sartre (Nausea, Being and Nothingness)

koningrobot 16y ago
The point is not arbitrary because it is my life and I get to choose what I do with it. I do seek contentment in spite of it, and I find it in "the zone". But this is irrelevant. You say it's not your business whether or not I pass on my genes. Is it also not your business whether or not I murder somebody you do not know? Creating new persons is not something to be taken lightly, it's at least up there with murder because birth entails death. By all means realize the absurdity and seek contentment, just don't force others into having to come the same long, stressful way to this revelation.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- ckuehne 16y ago
  If it is the "forcing others" part that bothers you I can reassure you: you don't force anyone to live by procreating. Simply, because there is no one you could force. Before you were born (or conceived for that matter) you did not exist. So your parents did not force you to anything. By the time you existed and could be asked you “choose to stay alive” because it is your “life after all”.
  - koningrobot 16y ago
    No, you have it precisely the wrong way around. The harm done by birth is harm because the victim is still around to suffer it. Compare this to the harm done by death, where there is no such victim anymore. As I said before, the question of whether I should stay alive even if I don't think it is worth it is way more complicated than the question of whether new lives should be begun. One complication is that suicide causes non-negligible stress for both the suicide and their surroundings.
    - ckuehne 16y ago
      I think your reasoning is flawed both on a practical and on the philosophical level. Let me first tackle the philosophical level: First, you insist on the impractical notion that it is only the suffering that counts and must be reduced no matter what. Being a intelligent fella you realize that the consequence would be the annihilation of all sentient life including your own. Since presumably you realize the absurd notion of this consequence you try to reclaim the validity of your argument by arguing that “not forcing others” is another crucial prerequisite in your ethic. (Regarding your own suffering and the ending of it you simply declare that “life is complicated”. Aha, so much for consistency. (By all means: be inconsistent in that case.)) But strictly speaking, you cannot force life on someone because that someone does not exist before she is alive. You can see it in your own comments. You talk about “forcing life on newborns”. But this is not true. Before they were alive they simply were not there. By definition you cannot force something that does not exist. Again: I can force you to give me your money but I cannot force something nonexistent to do anything. So you are back to square one: total annihilation of all life. The same reasoning applies to your heroin addiction analogy by the way: The alternatives are not heroin vs. no heroin but heroin addiction vs. death. You see, you can without a doubt compare a person that is heroin addicted to one that is not and conclude the the non-addict is for some reasonable metric better off. But you cannot compare a person who is alive with something that does not exist. It doesn’t make any sense. The philosophical nitpicking aside, what really strikes me as odd is your sole focus on suffering. In your picture you also “force the newborn” with high probability to having two legs, in- and exhaling air, and opening a bank account before her 30th birthday. And who likes that? But wouldn’t it be much more reasonable, as other commenters have pointed out, to account for more than just the suffering in the calculation whether a life is worth living? When you are in need for something, lets say food, do you only take into account the costs or do you compare the benefit you get from the food vs. its costs (the costs being the suffering in this analogy)? I mean, as a “life addict” yourself you realize that the suffering is sometimes not everything that counts especially when it is outweighed by the benefits you have by being alive. Don’t get me wrong: of course suffering is bad. But as you said yourself “life is complicated” and often you have to take more into account than just one single variable like suffering or the opening of a bank account. It is of course your choice whether you procreate or not. But your argument against it might not be as conclusive as you might think.