Is nonexistence preferable to living?

[jp255]

I think I have some points to add to this discussion. I have touched on this subject before in other threads (in the religion forum i think).

 

My overall opinion is in support of the OP, but I use a different line of reasoning. I have argued that even society itself should agree with the OP. My argument deals with ethics rather than philosophy.

 

Consider the hypothetical scenario: "Tomorrow a way to end the universe becomes available, and the end will be a painless death for all life. You are given the choice to end the universe, what is the most acceptable outcome, end or no end? and what do you choose to do?"

 

If both outcomes of the question are considered, it can be argued that both outcomes are both acceptable and unacceptable at the same time (according to society). The decision to end the universe can be considered unreasonable because it would kill human beings, but at the same time it can be considered reasonable because it would prevent unacceptable harm (crimes) to humans in the future (and I assume here that the majority of the populace would conclude that it is highly likely an unacceptable crime would occur in the future). The decision not to end is reasonable because murder is not committed, but is also unreasonable because you have knowingly allowed for crimes to occur.

 

To continue on from this, the hypothetical scenario of the creation of the universe can be considered also (assuming the universe was created for the scenario): "Knowing what you know of the universe today, do you think the decision to create this universe is an ethically acceptable decision to make?"

 

When I contemplate these two questions I come to the same conclusion as the OP, but I go further and conclude that the creation of the universe is an ethically unacceptable decision to make (according to my own secular ethics and it may even go against the law).

 

The issues I have surround the value of "good" and "bad" that you mention. I would decide not to create the universe because I would rather not have to weigh up good vs bad (how does one even compare the two? and is it reasonable for us to decide one persons pleasure is worth more than anothers pain?), and instead I'd rather just have nothing or neutrality (nonexistence). This is the decision which I find most acceptable to live with, (yes, this justification is selfish.).

[knownothing]

His motivations do not make his deeds any less good

His deeds are not worthy of rebuke or praise.

If the gift is one that keeps on giving, that's even better. There is no law of conservation of happiness.

Yes, there is no cosmic regulation of happiness at all. This is why some people can go their whole lives without being very happy.

 

This is what biologists have not considered much in their pursuit of an explanation for altruism, that altruism is not the opposite of selfishness but a form of it, and explicable as both action and motive by reference to identity.

All metaphysics aside, it seems like altruism is just another way of saying mutualism (or attempted mutualism if the giver or recipient experiences remorse afterwards).

 

 

When I contemplate these two questions I come to the same conclusion as the OP, but I go further and conclude that the creation of the universe is an ethically unacceptable decision to make (according to my own secular ethics and it may even go against the law).

 

The issues I have surround the value of "good" and "bad" that you mention. I would decide not to create the universe because I would rather not have to weigh up good vs bad (how does one even compare the two? and is it reasonable for us to decide one persons pleasure is worth more than anothers pain?), and instead I'd rather just have nothing or neutrality (nonexistence). This is the decision which I find most acceptable to live with, (yes, this justification is selfish.)

From our point of view it is certainly unethical, but from an outsider's POV ("God's" I suppose) a human's suffering could be looked at as meaningless since it is only temporary. If I were a god, I could conclude that each human never even suffered at all because their death invalidated their entire life. Look back at a dead person and you will see that they are no better or worse off for ever having lived (or died for that matter).

 

But yes, from my view as a human, I would destroy the universe or at least the human race without a second thought if I had the option. There is no point in feeling guilty about ending other people's pleasure, because they will not care after they cease to exist. It is the bereaved that you owe an apology, and there will be none in this scenario.

 

In other words, the absence of pleasure is not bad but pain is bad. Therefore taking away someone's life can only be considered bad if it causes pain to others. If you take away all life, you are not doing anything bad but you are stopping species-wide misery from continuing.

Edited May 9, 2013 by knownothing

[jp255]

His deeds are not worthy of rebuke or praise.

Yes, there is no cosmic regulation of happiness at all. This is why some people can go their whole lives without being very happy.

 

All metaphysics aside, it seems like altruism is just another way of saying mutualism (or attempted mutualism if the giver or recipient experiences remorse afterwards).

 

From our point of view it is certainly unethical, but from an outsider's POV ("God's" I suppose) a human's suffering could be looked at as meaningless since it is only temporary. If I were a god, I could conclude that each human never even suffered at all because their death invalidated their entire life. Look back at a dead person and you will see that they are no better or worse off for ever having lived (or died for that matter).

 

But yes, from my view as a human, I would destroy the universe or at least the human race without a second thought if I had the option. There is no point in feeling guilty about ending other people's pleasure, because they will not care after they cease to exist. It is the bereaved that you owe an apology, and there will be none in this scenario.

 

In other words, the absence of pleasure is not bad but pain is bad. Therefore taking away someone's life can only be considered bad if it causes pain to others. If you take away all life, you are not doing anything bad but you are stopping species-wide misery from continuing.

I think this is more controversial than you make out. I bet there would be many people who would not agree that it is certainly unethical. I would also imagine that those who worship a being, whom they consider to be the creator, might disagree (assuming that their ability to worship the creator means they find the decision to create acceptable). Perhaps I'd even suggest that people who do worship a creator have not ethically examined these questions or judged the creator (I assume that if they had they shouldn't approve of the creator). I am happy to suggest this because use of logic from the point of view of society does not deem the creator's actions to be acceptable (assume here that many believers in a creator live by and agree with societies's laws). I also asked these hypothetical questions somewhere else and received a lot of emotional responses, and I was subject to some name calling.

 

I don't think it is worthwhile comparing life to life after death (or lack of) because we don't have much knowledge of what happens after death.

 

I would also take the same course of action as you, for the reasoning I expressed earlier. I used to take a rather emo stance on this matter, but I have since realised I was valuing unacceptable events over the good things using an unreasonable justification.

 

It seems that strict application of ethics can be self-destructive in certain situations. An interesting question that I found myself asking after I considered those questions is: What qualities are required in order for my (and societies') ethics to approve of the creation/universe overall?

Edited May 9, 2013 by jp255

[Prometheus]

But yes, from my view as a human, I would destroy the universe or at least the human race without a second thought if I had the option.

 

Would you consult with any of your 6 billion fellow humans in this first?

[knownothing]

I think this is more controversial than you make out. I bet there would be many people who would not agree that it is certainly unethical. I would also imagine that those who worship a being, whom they consider to be the creator, might disagree (assuming that their ability to worship the creator means they find the decision to create acceptable). Perhaps I'd even suggest that people who do worship a creator have not ethically examined these questions or judged the creator (I assume that if they had they shouldn't approve of the creator). I am happy to suggest this because use of logic from the point of view of society does not deem the creator's actions to be acceptable (assume here that many believers in a creator live by and agree with societies's laws). I also asked these

hypothetical questions somewhere else and received a lot of emotional responses, and I was subject to some name calling.

 

 

I knew when I started this thread that there was a chance of people making highly emotional responses. So far, I have been pleased that everyone has managed to remain civil. I would not have even attempted it if these forums did not appear to have anti-flaming policies.

 

I don't think it is worthwhile comparing life to life after death (or lack of) because we don't have much knowledge of what happens after death.

Isn't it fair to assume that there isn't one with the information that we currently have available (NDE is another can of worms but the people still had brain stem function). One thing we do know is that everything that makes you "you" can get destroyed by brain damage and you will still be alive, so if you continue to exist after death but are no longer "you" then I think you might as well be a different person.

 

I would also take the same course of action as you, for the reasoning I expressed earlier. I used to take a rather emo stance on this matter, but I have since realised I was valuing unacceptable events over the good things using an unreasonable justification.

I came to my conclusion after a several-months-long existential crisis.

 

It seems that strict application of ethics can be self-destructive in certain situations. An interesting question that I found myself asking after I considered those questions is: What qualities are required in order for my (and societies') ethics to approve of the creation/universe overall?

Well, I am sure that it could be done. Despite what I say about killing all life, I don't have anything against life on principle.

 

Would you consult with any of your 6 billion fellow humans in this first?

 

You fail to understand that, if I was given this opportunity to exterminate our species, and I turned it down, I would be making a decision for hundreds of billions of future people anyway. How is it any more wrong for me to make a decision for seven billion? You act as though the instant cessation of consciousness for seven billion people is as bad as misery for hundreds of billions of people.

 

No one ever chooses to be born. This is a choice that someone else makes. And if I did not cause extinction, I would be allowing hundreds of billions of people to have a choice made for them. I would be doing this with the knowledge that many of them will be mistreated and abused, suffer from mental anguish, live in destitution, be born with severe defects, etc.

Edited May 9, 2013 by knownothing

[Prometheus]

You fail to understand that, if I was given this opportunity to exterminate our species, and I turned it down, I would be making a decision for hundreds of billions of future people anyway. How is it any more wrong for me to make a decision for seven billion? You act as though the instant cessation of consciousness for seven billion people is as bad as misery for hundreds of billions of people.

 

No one ever chooses to be born. This is a choice that someone else makes. And if I did not cause extinction, I would be allowing hundreds of billions of people to have a choice made for them. I would be doing this with the knowledge that many of them will be mistreated and abused, suffer from mental anguish, live in destitution, be born with severe defects, etc.

 

You seem to think we all would prefer non-existence. Have you actually gone out to get a representative sample of people's opinions on this matter? Most people seem happy to exist even if we do suffer. If we all agreed with you we could very easily terminate the human species within a generation, by not reproducing. But we apparently deem it worthwhile to bring another being into existence knowing full well that the being will suffer.

 

At the end of the day, the universe doesn't care what we think. End the universe, and it'll probably just pop back into existence again from nothing (like it apparently did this time), sentience will probably arise again with it's suffering (no more surprising to find it twice than once, surely?), and we'll be back at the same place. Find a better solution. Or just learn to live with your suffering.

[knownothing]

You seem to think we all would prefer non-existence. Have you actually gone out to get a representative sample of people's opinions on this matter? Most people seem happy to exist even if we do suffer. If we all agreed with you we could very easily terminate the human species within a generation, by not reproducing. But we apparently deem it worthwhile to bring another being into existence knowing full well that the being will suffer.

Of course I don't think this. If I thought that it was a widely held belief, I would not have bothered making this thread. The point is not to consider whether people deem it worthwhile to bring a child into existence (it is obvious that most people do) but whether it is truly good to live in the first place. My conclusion is that it is not. I honestly don't care if John Smith down the road wants to keep his life. How can you say that someone really wants to live when they have been programmed by evolution to fear death irrationally? Do they truly enjoy their life, or do they just want to cling to it because it is a sure thing and all they have? The fear of death, the sex drive and the desire to have offspring make it impossible for the human species to voluntarily go extinct, so it means nothing that we haven't decided to stop reproducing or commit mass suicide.

 

Also, it is not worth it for John Smith to have a swell life if millions of other people have miserable lives. Humanity is not a collective organism. The woman in Fritzl's basement does not benefit from Smith's fun activities and high-paying job. John Smith's opinion is worth nothing to me.

 

End the universe, and it'll probably just pop back into existence again from nothing (like it apparently did this time), sentience will probably arise again with it's suffering (no more surprising to find it twice than once, surely?), and we'll be back at the same place. Find a better solution. Or just learn to live with your suffering.

So I should I should try to concern myself with every living being that will ever exist? If all of this that you speak of is inevitable, it is futile for me to factor it into my decision. If you cannot permanently fix a problem, that does not mean that you should never try to temporarily fix it. I might as well not bother to mow my yard because it will just grow back. Anything less than a perfect solution is not worth doing, apparently.

 

How about instead of throwing my hands up in the air because some stuff will probably happen eons from now, I make the decision that doesn't involve hundreds of billions of people needlessly suffering?

Edited May 9, 2013 by knownothing

[Prometheus]

How can you say that someone really wants to live when they have been programmed by evolution to fear death irrationally? Do they truly enjoy their life, or do they just want to cling to it because it is a sure thing and all they have? The fear of death, the sex drive and the desire to have offspring make it impossible for the human species to voluntarily go extinct, so it means nothing that we haven't decided to stop reproducing or commit mass suicide.

 

Also, it is not worth it for John Smith to have a swell life if millions of other people have miserable lives. Humanity is not a collective organism. The woman in Fritzl's basement does not benefit from Smith's fun activities and high-paying job. John Smith's opinion is worth nothing to me.

 

So I should I should try to concern myself with every living being that will ever exist? If all of this that you speak of is inevitable, it is futile for me to factor it into my decision. If you cannot permanently fix a problem, that does not mean that you should never try to temporarily fix it. I might as well not bother to mow my yard because it will just grow back. Anything less than a perfect solution is not worth doing, apparently.

 

 

I make the decision that doesn't involve hundreds of billions of people needlessly suffering?

 

 

So you acknowledge people prefer existence despite their suffering, but you would benevolently decide it is in their best interests not to have existed.

[knownothing]

So you acknowledge people prefer existence despite their suffering, but you would benevolently decide it is in their best interests not to have existed.

 

A bit of an oversimplification, but basically yes.

Edited May 9, 2013 by knownothing

[MonDie]

Isn't it fair to assume that there isn't one with the information that we currently have available (NDE is another can of worms but the people still had brain stem function). One thing we do know is that everything that makes you "you" can get destroyed by brain damage and you will still be alive, so if you continue to exist after death but are no longer "you" then I think you might as well be a different person.

 

The comparison between identity loss and death is something I mentioned in a long (but amateurish and mostly trivial) treatise on a want-based utilitarianism. Since I wrote this several months ago, I've come to doubt that wants are precisely what should be the basis of morality, but there is a portion of the treatise that happens to coincide with this discussion.

 

 

Suppose there is a button that, upon being pressed, would kill every person on the planet and replace them with new people who would be perpetually happy. Would you press it? You might not press it because you wish to continue living your life, or because your life has been lived for the world you already know. Maybe you would press it if you would survive, but that's clearly inconsiderate of the others, who would urge you not to press it.

In contrast, one might argue that it would be selfish to not press the button to spare your own life, so you should press it even if your life will be lost. But the underlying maxim is a bad one. Sure, there might be multiple variations on the golden rule that could work. However, if the golden rule were “treat yourself as you would like to treat others” or “treat yourself as others would like to treat you,” we would have some big problems with it. Even something like “treat yourself as you would well-meaningly treat others” would be incomplete at best. An intuitive understanding of what it means to treat oneself well is the only rational basis for what it means to treat others well. Without that intuitive basis, such a rule would boil down to something like, “treat yourself as Yoda tells you to treat others,” and Yoda might tell you that violent screaming is a sign of joy.

 

 

You mentioned that it is wrong to take a life once it has begun. Now, not only do most people prefer to continue existing, they usually like the fact that they came into existence in the first place. Per the argument above, this would suggest that it is a good thing to bring a new human into existence.

Just an FYI to readers: This is not an anti-abortion argument. The uniting of gametes has absolutely no ethical relevance in my utilitarianism.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[jp255]

So you acknowledge people prefer existence despite their suffering, but you would benevolently decide it is in their best interests not to have existed.

Prometheus, what is your point?

 

Do you acknowledge that criminals might prefer not to be incarcerated, but you benevolently decide it is in their best interests to be incarcerated or subjected to the death penalty etc.?

Double standards.

 

If you want to critize the arguments then criticize the justification.

 

I knew when I started this thread that there was a chance of people making highly emotional responses. So far, I have been pleased that everyone has managed to remain civil. I would not have even attempted it if these forums did not appear to have anti-flaming policies.

People are quite civil on here, which is great. I was annoyed that the discussion I started elsewhere was not fruitful.

 

Isn't it fair to assume that there isn't one with the information that we currently have available (NDE is another can of worms but the people still had brain stem function). One thing we do know is that everything that makes you "you" can get destroyed by brain damage and you will still be alive, so if you continue to exist after death but are no longer "you" then I think you might as well be a different person.

My concern is that we can't really compare the experiences and feelings we have during our lives to feelings/experiences after death.

 

I came to my conclusion after a several-months-long existential crisis.

I can't remember what led me to hypothetically consider the ethics of god's decision (or just a decision ) to create this universe. I think it was something from the religion forum, maybe it was the thread where I went a bit emo (I suppose that was my crisis).

Edited May 10, 2013 by jp255

[Prometheus]

Prometheus, what is your point?

 

Do you acknowledge that criminals might prefer not to be incarcerated, but you benevolently decide it is in their best interests to be incarcerated or subjected to the death penalty etc.?

Double standards.

 

If you want to critize the arguments then criticize the justification.

 

To be a double standard i must be applying different principles to similar situations. Let's have a look:

 

I acknowledge that criminals generally prefer not to be incarcerated.

I believe it is in the best interests of society for them to be incarcerated.

 

I acknowledge that people generally prefer to exist despite their suffering.

I believe it is in the best interests of all for them to continue to exist.

 

I do not think these are similar situations.

 

 

It was less a point anyway, although there is one between the lines, just my attempt to understand the OP's position.

[DevilSolution]

What makes you think you exist?

[PeterJ]

Good question.

 

Or, what do you mean by 'you'?

[MonDie]

What makes you think you exist?

 

If I don't didn't exist, I can't wouldn't do anything, thus these words will would never be read.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[jp255]

To be a double standard i must be applying different principles to similar situations. Let's have a look:

 

I acknowledge that criminals generally prefer not to be incarcerated.

I believe it is in the best interests of society for them to be incarcerated.

 

I acknowledge that people generally prefer to exist despite their suffering.

I believe it is in the best interests of all for them to continue to exist.

 

I do not think these are similar situations.

 

 

It was less a point anyway, although there is one between the lines, just my attempt to understand the OP's position.

Are you trying to cleverly ignore the point I was trying to make on purpose?

 

My point is that your post was pointless. Despite the fact that criminals don't want to be incarcerated, society does incarcerate them anyway. Despite the fact that the majority of humans probably don't want to cease to exist, I would decide to destroy the universe and make them cease to exist.

 

In the same way society doesn't care about a criminals interests, I don't care about that majority that wants to carry on existing. If your post was supposed to be a counter argument, then it would have presented as a double standard (why am I wrong? but society isn't?).

Edited May 10, 2013 by jp255

[knownothing]

You mentioned that it is wrong to take a life once it has begun. Now, not only do most people prefer to continue existing, they usually like the fact that they came into existence in the first place. Per the argument above, this would suggest that it is a good thing to bring a new human into existence.

My position is that the fear of death and the need to find meaning in life leads most people to the incorrect belief that their birth was fortunate rather than unfortunate. I think that people believe life is good either because they are are too absent-minded to have empathy for others (an overly-stimulated American who exists from one pleasure to the next) or they nullify their doubts with an optimistic confirmation-bias or metaphysical beliefs. My belief is that, while life is bad more often than it is good, people cannot be trusted to leave it behind because it is all they know and it is a sure thing.

 

Of course, there are a few who despise their life but cannot commit suicide, either because they are physically unable, too afraid, or mentally blocked by the prospect of guilt or a fear of Hell. I would be doing these people the largest favor, but most of the others would still be benefitting to a smaller degree. Perhaps the long-suffering doormat type of person who is just waiting to die and go to heaven would be as equally benefitted as the hopeless suicidal person.

 

My concern is that we can't really compare the experiences and feelings we have during our lives to feelings/experiences after death.

I just don't see any reason to suspect there will be experiences after death. Maybe I am being closed-minded.

 

What makes you think you exist?

I don't know if this was directed at me, but I can give it a try at answering. I'm only a layman in science and philosophy, so my explanation might be crude sounding.

 

I see from my eyes, I hear from my ears, I smell from my nose, I taste with my tongue and I feel with my multiple parts of my body, mostly my skin. As an individual with thoughts and feelings, I am only an illusion, but as a physical object, I surely exist.

Edited May 10, 2013 by knownothing

[PeterJ]

That's what Neo might have said, before he saw through the scam. .

[knownothing]

That's what Neo might have said, before he saw through the scam. .

 

Can you try to explain this better? I'm not too Matrix-savvy. It's something about taking a pill and finding out the world is fake, right?

Edited May 11, 2013 by knownothing

[PeterJ]

Well, Neo is a poor example really, since although the Matrix is based on Buddhist ideas the metaphor breaks down in the storyline. There is no metaphor that works, and this is a problem in life and not just for filmmakers. .

 

Suppose that world is as Kant and Hegel supposed and can be reduced to a single phenomenon. Suppose that this is the only phenomenon that is truly real and non-contingent. Then suppose that you are this phenomenon but you have forgotten, and your mind is always so active you cannot ever see that this phenomenon is right there, all the time, just out of your sight, and that when you realise this you will know that there is no 'you', and that 'you' are just a fiction overlaid on this phenomenon. So the phenomenon is real, and you are it, but this 'you' who you think you are would be a fiction.

 

This is something like (but not very like) Descartes' evil demon idea, but good and evil and demons would be as unreal as you.

[knownothing]

That sounds a lot like solipsism.

 

I was just saying that none of us as individuals really exist in a physical sense, but we do not exist metaphysically either, so our mind don't really exist except as the product of physical processes.

 

I might be making a fallacy or something, because I haven't read many official writings on this kind of thing and I am just trying to reckon from my own knowledge and ideas.

Edited May 11, 2013 by knownothing

[Prometheus]

Are you trying to cleverly ignore the point I was trying to make on purpose?

 

My point is that your post was pointless. Despite the fact that criminals don't want to be incarcerated, society does incarcerate them anyway. Despite the fact that the majority of humans probably don't want to cease to exist, I would decide to destroy the universe and make them cease to exist.

 

In the same way society doesn't care about a criminals interests, I don't care about that majority that wants to carry on existing. If your post was supposed to be a counter argument, then it would have presented as a double standard (why am I wrong? but society isn't?).

 

I thought i addressed your point. I'll try again.

 

Regarding the OP: One person is saying she wants to end existence for all people because of suffering without giving them a choice. I do not think this fair.

 

Regarding the criminal: Many people (society) are saying they want to limit the existence (i.e. jail) of one person because of the suffering they are causing. I think this is fair.

 

To say this is double standards is to say the first statement is equal to the second. Do i need to explain why they are not?

 

The point of saying:

 

So you acknowledge people prefer existence despite their suffering, but you would benevolently decide it is in their best interests not to have existed.

 

was for me to confirm that i have understood the OP's position which he confirmed i had, albeit an oversimplification. A further point, implied, is that most of us would rather have our own choice about our existence rather than it be up to one person. This is not a similar situation to a criminal wanting a choice in his incarceration, as mentioned above.

 

... the Matrix is based on Buddhist ideas ...

 

What? I thought fight club was a Buddhist film.

[knownothing]

Just to clarify, I only said it was a simplification because I do not think that the average person has an accurate idea about death. They assume that something bad will happen, which is not true from what we can currently know. So I do not think that the average person would be making an informed decision. But, yes, I think it would be for their own good in a great majority of the cases.

 

It's fine that you don't think it's fair, I am just saying what my decision would be. Inevitably, it cannot be a perfect solution since we are going for all or nothing here. I am picking the "lesser of two evils" as they say.

Edited May 12, 2013 by knownothing

[Prometheus]

Fair enough. I have no problem with your position - might change if you had the power to implement it though.

 

Incidentally i agree with your idea you about death. Its not even nothing, since by saying nothing it leaves us with an impression. I'll come to my non-existence soon enough, no need for you to rush it, but thanks for caring. I am nothing but what the universe happens to be doing at this particular time and space. The conditions that cause me will rise then fall, and what i call I will cease. I think that is what some others are alluding to - there was never a fixed, permanent I in existence.

 

Time for bed before i start talking utter rubbish.

[jp255]

I thought i addressed your point. I'll try again.

 

Regarding the OP: One person is saying she wants to end existence for all people because of suffering without giving them a choice. I do not think this fair.

 

Regarding the criminal: Many people (society) are saying they want to limit the existence (i.e. jail) of one person because of the suffering they are causing. I think this is fair.

 

To say this is double standards is to say the first statement is equal to the second. Do i need to explain why they are not?

 

The point of saying:

 

 

was for me to confirm that i have understood the OP's position which he confirmed i had, albeit an oversimplification. A further point, implied, is that most of us would rather have our own choice about our existence rather than it be up to one person. This is not a similar situation to a criminal wanting a choice in his incarceration, as mentioned above.

 

 

What? I thought fight club was a Buddhist film.

I still think there is a double standard here, but let's move on from that.

 

As I have argued earlier, I think that if it were possible to destroy the universe then the decision not to end and the decision to end are both ethically unacceptable and acceptable at the same time. So I do not agree when you say the decision to end is not fair.