Submitted by philosophybreak t3_y9ndt3 in philosophy
I very much agree, what is the point of developing "oughts" if not to make existence worth living?
However, this could also lead to pessimistic philosophy like Antinatalism, Efilism, Pro mortalism, Nihilism, etc. Because some may see suffering as something unpreventable, at least for the unlucky ones and believe we "ought" to not exist, so we dont have to suffer due to bad luck.
Its easy for us to say we ought to live with suffering when we are not the ones that end up on the extreme end of the suffering spectrum, just like how democracy may vote for things that are good for the majority but terrible for the minority.
Personally, I have yet found a philosophy that could speak for both the majority and the minority with regard to suffering. Should we continue the species knowing that some will always have terrible lives not worth living? Should we end the entire species because of some victims of terrible lives? We dont have a clear cut philosophical answer, as far as I know.
One for all or all for one?
What are you saying leads to pessimism here, the acknowledgement that suffering is inevitable? Because I doubt there's any philosophy in existence that completely denies the existence of suffering at all, and most philosophies are not pessimistic in the sense here, so the acknowledgement definitely doesn't lead to that.
As for philosophies that speak to the suffering of all and not just some, there are a lot that do, but it's mostly just paper thin arguments about why those suffering the most implicitly deserve it because they don't play by society's rules. I suspect speaking about suffering in general is too abstract to really examine those most suffering in society in a way that's meant to be integrated into a larger sociopolitical philosophy.
Basically we have no answer, the unluck minority still suffers and no philosophy could make them feel like their suffering is worth it, because honestly its not, this is why we have suicide and people begging for their lives to end.
Maybe we need a philosophy that could accept this unchanging fact of existence and somehow still able to justify the existence of the lucky majority at the expense of the few, statistically speaking. Its the eternal trolley problem of existence, but somehow make it ok to sacrifice some people for the many, even if the victims strongly protest it.
Otherwise we'd end up with Antinatalism, Pro mortalism and Efilism, quite depressing.
>Maybe we need a philosophy that could accept this unchanging fact of existence and somehow still able to justify the existence of the lucky majority at the expense of the few, statistically speaking.
we already do.
look at the dialogue surrounding the poor and unemployed, or even more relevant that attitudes of people from America in regards to climate change and China. or the West vs the 3rd world, funny how the ones most suited to change the climate routinely do the least.
majority of humanity is perfectly happy to stack piles of corpses as long as they dont have to do it or see it directly (see: every single person on reddit. if you live a middle class lifestyle you are living on the backs of 10,000s, all the things we own are only cheap because the people making it are borderline slaves).
Biggest BS of all time: Reddit blaming corporations for producing 80% of global pollution without a fucking hint of irony. its the same as addicts putting all the blame of the dealer ''oh i buy drugs all the time but its the dealers fault i keep coming back!''
In some way, this is the default philosophy of humanity and the strongest counter argument against pessimistic philosophies, though I personally dont think its a strong argument.
"We keep going at the expense of the unlucky few because majority rule, has been and will always be." -- is their strongest argument, which is hard to challenge if they truly believe in it.
Personally, I think we need a better philosophy that gives the victims of existence more consideration that they deserve, because they most definitely have a vote in this human experiment, since they have paid the highest price for it, by suffering lives that are not worth living.
I hope we can develop such a philosophy soon, because many are giving up and flocking to pessimism.
If we want to be morally consistent, to not just shout slogans about individual well being and actually care for the victims, then we better do something about it soon. Majority rule is just not a good moral stance.
>make it ok to sacrifice some people for the many, even if the victims strongly protest it.
Hitler has entered the chat...
and left because bad luck is not genocide.
It's just that any philosophy which allows for justifying genocide... tends to go that way.
Accepting bad luck is not justifying genocide, what the eff are you talking about? lol
But it's not really "bad luck" at all, is it? Accepting a philosophy that "makes it ok [...]" is a choice, both individually and collectively. Practically speaking, there are some major pitfalls to such, amongst them: people will compete to be immune to such "sacrifice", people will fight for control of the power to decide, and any group which is consistent immune by such means will tend to start viewing itself as superior to the rest.
errrr, ok.
and?
you act like theres any actual alternative, 'needs of the many' is how we have done pretty much all of civilised history.
the hitler example above is perfect, the nazis believed the needs of the many would be served by genocide and we decided the needs of the many were served by destroying the nazis (luckily we won)
And?
That proves the philosophical "toolset" you propose is flawed. It allows you to derive both. A premise that leads to Hitler being justified is problematic, to say the least.
A philosophy that relies on luck, rather than shared principles, also has little value. It requires accepting an unjust world - not just that we live in one, but also that we needn't do anything about it.
I don't see how any philosophy which allows such cavalier treatment of human lives, which consciences the unjust suffering of your peers for the sake of your own gain, can ever be morally useful.
>Personally, I have yet found a philosophy that could speak for both the majority and the minority with regard to suffering.
is that an issue?
i would argue its not possible to find an all encompassing ideology. there will always be exceptions, bad faith actors, corruption by the wealthy and threat/influence by outside forces.
It is an issue if we want to be morally consistent and dont agree with "majority rule" when it comes to suffering.
We constantly shout about how moral we are because we care about individuals, but when it comes to extreme suffering of some unlucky victims, we swing back to moral collectivism, ignoring the victims for the many, this is morally questionable if not deplorable.
Mainly you have to abandon the idea that suffering is of no value. It's not pleasant, by definition, and we generally do not seek it out, but a life entirely without suffering may be worse than one that had some.
If only some people dont suffer so much that their entire life is not worth repeating or even beginning.
Its not that easy, some lives are absolutely nightmarish and should never even start, if we could prevent it.
Suffering is only "bearable" if it doesnt destroy someone's life, which for some unlucky victims, it does, horrifically.
Apply it at a species level- if humanity suffers some overall, but considers it worthwhile overall, it is worth humanity continuing, regardless if some people draw the short straw.
That's the problem, we dont all agree on this one for all philosophy, which is why we have Schopenhauer, Antinatalism, Efilism and Pro mortalism, nihilism and other "better end it soonest" philosophies that argue for the minority.
Its easy for you and I to say its worth it when we are not the ones with the shortest of the short straws ever, almost no straw even, lol.
If you have seen such suffering up close, you'd understand why some people would rather we dont exist than to keep making these victims for the sake of the "many".
So let's rephrase your point: "I'm not enjoying life, therefore no humans who are enjoying life should exist."
Sounds a bit extreme, doesn't it?
A second thing to ask is why we'd remotely be obligated to keep all people happy instead of just most, or even some. People who don't want to exist are, in most cases, one jump away from not. If they don't want to do that either, well...not our problem.
Here's a few example for your thought, if you would stop engaging in bad faith.
-born with stage 4 bone cancer, died in agony at age 10, not a single day without pain.
-Entire family kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered in front of them due to war, the cartel, ethnic cleansing, random psycho.
-born with genetic mental torture, the "happy" part of their brain are literally missing (as in no brain matter in that section), not a single day of their existence is not torture.
-millions of children live very short and torturous lives due to war, famine, natural disasters, poverty, genetic diseases, crime, random unpreventable bad luck, etc. What is the worth of their existence? Would you trade places with them?
"Not enjoying life" and "not happy" indeed, this is reality, actual nightmare is a thing for some people, friend.
Telling the victims of suffering to just kill themselves is the MOST deplorable thing another human being could do, extreme sociopathy by definition, not a justification for anything but pure sociopathy.
Its not your problem because you just dont care, you do you, but a lot us do care and are working hard to find a way to make existence worth it for the victims, unless you wanna physically stop us to uphold your "ideal" of narcissism, then why bother shouting about it from the top of your lungs?
And there are billions who do enjoy life. Are those examples you list a reason why those billions should not live and enjoy life?
Again, "I'm not happy, therefore you shouldn't exist" is the position of the school shooter, not a rational human being.
Read my replies again, carefully, because you are missing the point entirely.
You're saying that the suffering of some means the joy of the majority can't be justified, and it would be better if they all didn't exist, yes?
And yet, for those of us who do enjoy life, this is justified.
Now this puts you in something of a state if we take you at your word- you're surrounded by a planet full of psychopaths who will gleefully bring into existence those who suffer just to share what they deem a pleasure with others, generation after generation, era after era.
And yet, you wish to continue living among such sadists. Why is that?
>You're saying that the suffering of some means the joy of the majority can't be justified, and it would be better if they all didn't exist, yes?
Nope, read all the replies again, from the very top.
>If you have seen such suffering up close, you'd understand why some people would rather we dont exist than to keep making these victims for the sake of the "many".
and still wouldnt agree.
those people have enough arrogance and cowardice to decide that no one should be brought in to existence due to the mere possibility of suffering, such 'philosophy' is just depression projected into a world view (and isnt worth serious consideration by anyone)
the vast majority of humanity does not wish they never existed, indeed the vast majority are happy to be alive (anti-natalists use extremely flawed and worthless reasoning by Benatar to justify their position ie Benatar baselessly assumes everyone lies about life quality)
Possibility or inevitability? I'm pretty sure victims of terrible endless suffering still exist, friend.
Though I personally disagree that we should end the world due to the suffering of some people, it is also true that we still dont have any good philosophy that could convincingly argue for the existence of these victims.
The closest we get is "majority rule" and that's just not good enough of a justification, in my opinion.
I've been having these questions about suffering and whether an absolutely horrible life should be lived lately these months. I believe that in some extreme cases where a good future is impossible, suicide is logical.
Suffering is something that is part of existence. Everyone will suffer. Now, suffering in an intense way for a long time without a perception of salvation is something that no one should go through, but some do. I don't believe that we should all cease to exist because of this minority. As it is inevitable that these people who suffer intensely will exist, I believe that the best solution is to seek the best option for them, that being trying to find some salvation that guarantees a better life or a peaceful death.
Perfection will never exist. Me, you, society, life and existence will always have problems, but the most logical decision I believe is that we should always live trying to be good, to learn and solve these problems. Two things that I believe help the existence, and perhaps even the growth, of suffering is the ignorance and selfishness that many people have. That's why I hate phrases like "ignorance is bliss" or "only seek happiness in your life because you only live once".
But according to negative utilitarianism, if we just blow up earth, then nobody will ever suffer again, thus ending the problem of suffering.
The only counter against this is majority rule, as in the ok-ish lives of the majority overrule the suffering of the minority, which is something that society have been doing since forever. Though I find this argument not so convincing.
It would really end the suffering, but I rule it out because it's almost impossible to happen. Like I rule out the idea of everyone stopping having children, it's something that will never happen.
The only solution I see is for the majority to seek to help the minority.
Impossible as in you have seen the future and know everything there is to know about future tech and science of world ending?
Or impossible as in your personal opinion based on limited knowledge?
I said that it is ALMOST impossible.
"Blow up the earth", whoever has the power to do this will most likely not do it to destroy the entire human race and end suffering, in fact they will want to generate more suffering. Those who have this power are the powerful and they don't want it.
If you're talking about everyone stopping having kids, it's also almost impossible. People will continue to have children for a variety of reasons. The only way for everyone to stop is to force them not to.
“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.”
Why did you post this shit on a philosophy sub? It is completely irrelevant.
Because religion is always right. /s
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments