Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 4:40:19 GMT
Wow, that's really splitting hairs. If you want have a serious discussion about this you need to be a bit more rigorous. Is "seek to avoid" part of the definition or not? If not, then (a) you cannot sloppily suggest that it is part of the definition, and (b) you need to explain and justify how we get to it. It is not in the definition, but that is a moot point. Sentient existence entails sensations of being harmed that it is observed that those organisms usually prefer to avoid. The words that comprise the definition of 'suffering' denote experiences that it can be observed that sentient organisms will normally avoid where possible. I can use my own experiences and confirm that I wish to avoid harm and suffering whenever possible. Those harmful sensations of suffering would not occur and would not need to be avoided if I did not exist. The impression I get from speaking to others and witnessing or learning about acts of torture is that at least the vast majority of sentient beings have a strong aversion experiencing suffering and harm, and would be spared these experiences if they did not exist. Moreover, pain is a signal from the brain which sentient beings have evolved in order to assist them in the avoidance of danger and harm. It has a constructive purpose, but the sensation itself is not a pleasant one and not one that most sentient beings will crave.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Sept 16, 2017 4:46:20 GMT
"By the very definition of suffering, it is a sensation that organisms seek to avoid"--where it "seek to avoid" in the definition you're quoting? Wow, that's really splitting hairs. Definitely not splitting hairs in my opinion. The definition you gave is "Suffering is serious pain which someone feels in their body or their mind", but there are plenty of people who don't seek to avoid that. Indeed, there are some who actively seek it out. Here are three examples: (1) Some people with strong religious convictions seek out bodily or mental pain because they feel that this will bring them closer to God - this doesn't make much sense to me, but it's an attitude that I've heard some people express. (2) Some people like to undergo pain as a kind of endurance test. You may have seen youtube videos of people doing painful challenges like eating incredibly hot peppers. (3) Some people seek out pain because they want to have as many different experiences as possible. They may feel that it's only by experiencing many different things, including very bad things, that a person can develop a full appreciation of the good things in life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 4:53:32 GMT
Wow, that's really splitting hairs. Definitely not splitting hairs in my opinion. The definition you gave is "Suffering is serious pain which someone feels in their body or their mind", but there are plenty of people who don't seek to avoid that. Indeed, there are some who actively seek it out. Here are three examples: (1) Some people with strong religious convictions seek out bodily or mental pain because they feel that this will bring them closer to God - this doesn't make much sense to me, but it's an attitude that I've heard some people express. (2) Some people like to undergo pain as a kind of endurance test. You may have seen youtube videos of people doing painful challenges like eating incredibly hot peppers. (3) Some people seek out pain because they want to have as many different experiences as possible. They may feel that it's only by experiencing many different things, including very bad things, that a person can develop a full appreciation of the good things in life. OK, then perhaps some people like suffering, but I for one don't and the purpose of pain is to assist in avoidance of dangers and harms. Therefore, it is perfectly rational for me to say that I resent being put in harm's way (given that harm is always a negative experience from my perspective) without any compelling reason other than that my parents wanted 'fulfillment' out of life. Whether or not there are some people who don't want to avoid things that the rest of us perceive as negative things is besides the point. The point is that there are many who will have an absolutely wretched time (i.e. the suffering doesn't merely help to accentuate their appreciation of the good things in life, but is something that makes the experience of being alive rather onerous and distressing) because of an unnecessary gamble which was taken with their wellbeing.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 16, 2017 13:51:15 GMT
If you want have a serious discussion about this you need to be a bit more rigorous. Is "seek to avoid" part of the definition or not? If not, then (a) you cannot sloppily suggest that it is part of the definition, and (b) you need to explain and justify how we get to it. It is not in the definition, but that is a moot point. Sentient existence entails sensations of being harmed that it is observed that those organisms usually prefer to avoid. The words that comprise the definition of 'suffering' denote experiences that it can be observed that sentient organisms will normally avoid where possible. I can use my own experiences and confirm that I wish to avoid harm and suffering whenever possible. Those harmful sensations of suffering would not occur and would not need to be avoided if I did not exist. The impression I get from speaking to others and witnessing or learning about acts of torture is that at least the vast majority of sentient beings have a strong aversion experiencing suffering and harm, and would be spared these experiences if they did not exist. Moreover, pain is a signal from the brain which sentient beings have evolved in order to assist them in the avoidance of danger and harm. It has a constructive purpose, but the sensation itself is not a pleasant one and not one that most sentient beings will crave. It's not a moot point if your argument is that such and such is the case by definition. It's not by definition. So a few things need to be sorted out with this statement: "Sentient existence entails sensations of being harmed that it is observed that those organisms usually prefer to avoid" Just how are you empirically establishing this? It is an empirical claim. You'd need a way to quantify instances of being harmed, you'd need a rigorous definition of just what it is to be harmed (otherwise there would be no way to quantify instances), and then you'd need to do the empirical research re just what people think (per their reports) when it comes to those instances. That would be a lot of work, but before you'd begin, I'd suggest tackling this: just what do you believe "most people prefer x given situation y, most of the time" to imply? Does it imply anything other than itself (other than a repetition of the same statement)?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 16, 2017 13:55:01 GMT
Definitely not splitting hairs in my opinion. The definition you gave is "Suffering is serious pain which someone feels in their body or their mind", but there are plenty of people who don't seek to avoid that. Indeed, there are some who actively seek it out. Here are three examples: (1) Some people with strong religious convictions seek out bodily or mental pain because they feel that this will bring them closer to God - this doesn't make much sense to me, but it's an attitude that I've heard some people express. (2) Some people like to undergo pain as a kind of endurance test. You may have seen youtube videos of people doing painful challenges like eating incredibly hot peppers. (3) Some people seek out pain because they want to have as many different experiences as possible. They may feel that it's only by experiencing many different things, including very bad things, that a person can develop a full appreciation of the good things in life. OK, then perhaps some people like suffering, but I for one don't and the purpose of pain is to assist in avoidance of dangers and harms. Therefore, it is perfectly rational for me to say that I resent being put in harm's way (given that harm is always a negative experience from my perspective) without any compelling reason other than that my parents wanted 'fulfillment' out of life. Whether or not there are some people who don't want to avoid things that the rest of us perceive as negative things is besides the point. The point is that there are many who will have an absolutely wretched time (i.e. the suffering doesn't merely help to accentuate their appreciation of the good things in life, but is something that makes the experience of being alive rather onerous and distressing) because of an unnecessary gamble which was taken with their wellbeing. There are no objective purposes. As I said, anti-natalist arguments always seem to hinge on objectivism, but objectivism is asinine. It should be obvious to you, with even a modicum of observation and honesty about what you're observing that objectivism is incorrect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 19:06:54 GMT
It is not in the definition, but that is a moot point. Sentient existence entails sensations of being harmed that it is observed that those organisms usually prefer to avoid. The words that comprise the definition of 'suffering' denote experiences that it can be observed that sentient organisms will normally avoid where possible. I can use my own experiences and confirm that I wish to avoid harm and suffering whenever possible. Those harmful sensations of suffering would not occur and would not need to be avoided if I did not exist. The impression I get from speaking to others and witnessing or learning about acts of torture is that at least the vast majority of sentient beings have a strong aversion experiencing suffering and harm, and would be spared these experiences if they did not exist. Moreover, pain is a signal from the brain which sentient beings have evolved in order to assist them in the avoidance of danger and harm. It has a constructive purpose, but the sensation itself is not a pleasant one and not one that most sentient beings will crave. It's not a moot point if your argument is that such and such is the case by definition. It's not by definition. So a few things need to be sorted out with this statement: "Sentient existence entails sensations of being harmed that it is observed that those organisms usually prefer to avoid" Just how are you empirically establishing this? It is an empirical claim. You'd need a way to quantify instances of being harmed, you'd need a rigorous definition of just what it is to be harmed (otherwise there would be no way to quantify instances), and then you'd need to do the empirical research re just what people think (per their reports) when it comes to those instances. That would be a lot of work, but before you'd begin, I'd suggest tackling this: just what do you believe "most people prefer x given situation y, most of the time" to imply? Does it imply anything other than itself (other than a repetition of the same statement)? The purpose of harmful sensations (such as pain) exist in order to help the organism avoid danger. The antinatalist argument does not rely on anything of the sort as an empirical study. All that is required is one single example of an organism feeling an aversion to an experience that could have been avoided had it not been brought into existence. All it requires is evidence that there is one single instance of a living organism being caused distress since the beginning of time. Since there experiences that I would prefer to have avoided, that proves the fact that in at least my own case, suffering is a negative experience. All that is implied by the statement is that there are certain experiences which are not pleasurable and that those experiences would not have occurred without the organism having been born.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 19:09:03 GMT
OK, then perhaps some people like suffering, but I for one don't and the purpose of pain is to assist in avoidance of dangers and harms. Therefore, it is perfectly rational for me to say that I resent being put in harm's way (given that harm is always a negative experience from my perspective) without any compelling reason other than that my parents wanted 'fulfillment' out of life. Whether or not there are some people who don't want to avoid things that the rest of us perceive as negative things is besides the point. The point is that there are many who will have an absolutely wretched time (i.e. the suffering doesn't merely help to accentuate their appreciation of the good things in life, but is something that makes the experience of being alive rather onerous and distressing) because of an unnecessary gamble which was taken with their wellbeing. There are no objective purposes. As I said, anti-natalist arguments always seem to hinge on objectivism, but objectivism is asinine. It should be obvious to you, with even a modicum of observation and honesty about what you're observing that objectivism is incorrect. And this is navel gazing, because the only thing that antinatalism hinges upon is that there are certain experiences that sentient organisms do not find pleasurable, and that unborn organisms are not at risk of experiencing those unpleasant sensations. The very nature of biology is such that sentient life is defined by the avoidance of harm (i.e. the need to satisfy hunger, the need to find shelter, the need to ward off disease, etc)
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 16, 2017 19:38:04 GMT
The purpose of harmful sensations (such as pain) exist in order to help the organism avoid danger. Now you're just kind of ignoring objections. That doesn't make your argument better. There are no objective purposes to anything. There are no right or wrong, true or false statements in the form of, "The purpose of x is ص."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 20:55:35 GMT
The purpose of harmful sensations (such as pain) exist in order to help the organism avoid danger. Now you're just kind of ignoring objections. That doesn't make your argument better. There are no objective purposes to anything. There are no right or wrong, true or false statements in the form of, "The purpose of x is ص." 'You can't prove that suffering is a bad thing' is not a serious or sensible objection. Sentient organisms experience sensations which are subjectively unpleasant to them and tend to avoid certain experiences when possible because of the unpleasant sensations associated with those experiences. The sensations themselves tend to signal that the sentient life form has sustained physical damage, or that their physical system is not functioning optimally. This is a mechanism which animals have evolved in order to help them avoid harm and increase the probability of transmitting their DNA to a new generation. This forms the basis of the golden rule - do unto others as you would want done unto you. Don't harm other people without a good reason, because you would not want to be harmed yourself. The burden is not upon the antinatalist to prove that sufffering has some kind of objective meaning in the universe (to this I would point out that consciousness is the only source of value in the universe); but on the natalist to justify why it is objectively important and justifiable to bring new life into a dangerous universe.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 16, 2017 21:03:49 GMT
Now you're just kind of ignoring objections. That doesn't make your argument better. There are no objective purposes to anything. There are no right or wrong, true or false statements in the form of, "The purpose of x is ص." 'You can't prove that suffering is a bad thing' is not a serious or sensible objection. Sentient organisms experience sensations which are subjectively unpleasant to them and tend to avoid certain experiences when possible because of the unpleasant sensations associated with those experiences. The sensations themselves tend to signal that the sentient life form has sustained physical damage, or that their physical system is not functioning optimally. This is a mechanism which animals have evolved in order to help them avoid harm and increase the probability of transmitting their DNA to a new generation. This forms the basis of the golden rule - do unto others as you would want done unto you. Don't harm other people without a good reason, because you would not want to be harmed yourself. The burden is not upon the antinatalist to prove that sufffering has some kind of objective meaning in the universe (to this I would point out that consciousness is the only source of value in the universe); but on the natalist to justify why it is objectively important and justifiable to bring new life into a dangerous universe. I point out that you're ignoring objections. I gave an example of one: the fact that there are no objective purposes . . . so you respond with a couple hundred words that completely ignore that you're ignoring objections, including that specific one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 21:12:26 GMT
'You can't prove that suffering is a bad thing' is not a serious or sensible objection. Sentient organisms experience sensations which are subjectively unpleasant to them and tend to avoid certain experiences when possible because of the unpleasant sensations associated with those experiences. The sensations themselves tend to signal that the sentient life form has sustained physical damage, or that their physical system is not functioning optimally. This is a mechanism which animals have evolved in order to help them avoid harm and increase the probability of transmitting their DNA to a new generation. This forms the basis of the golden rule - do unto others as you would want done unto you. Don't harm other people without a good reason, because you would not want to be harmed yourself. The burden is not upon the antinatalist to prove that sufffering has some kind of objective meaning in the universe (to this I would point out that consciousness is the only source of value in the universe); but on the natalist to justify why it is objectively important and justifiable to bring new life into a dangerous universe. I point out that you're ignoring objections. I gave an example of one: the fact that there are no objective purposes . . . so you respond with a couple hundred words that completely ignore that you're ignoring objections, including that specific one? The burden is on the natalists to prove that there are objective purposes; given that they are the ones who are in favour of the act of imposing life. Antinatalists are the ones saying that there is no objective reason why life needs to be perpetuated; so you have this entirely backwards.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 16, 2017 21:14:20 GMT
I point out that you're ignoring objections. I gave an example of one: the fact that there are no objective purposes . . . so you respond with a couple hundred words that completely ignore that you're ignoring objections, including that specific one? The burden is on the natalists to prove that there are objective purposes; given that they are the ones who are in favour of the act of imposing life. Antinatalists are the ones saying that there is no objective reason why life needs to be perpetuated; so you have this entirely backwards. You made this statement earlier: "The purpose of harmful sensations (such as pain) exist in order to help the organism avoid danger." That statement is part of your argument, right? Do you believe that the statement is true, so that it could implicationally support other statements in an argument?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 22:15:47 GMT
The burden is on the natalists to prove that there are objective purposes; given that they are the ones who are in favour of the act of imposing life. Antinatalists are the ones saying that there is no objective reason why life needs to be perpetuated; so you have this entirely backwards. You made this statement earlier: "The purpose of harmful sensations (such as pain) exist in order to help the organism avoid danger." That statement is part of your argument, right? Do you believe that the statement is true, so that it could implicationally support other statements in an argument? My argument is that there are certain experiences and sensations that cause unpleasant sensations and aversions in living organisms. Those sensations are usually described as being painful or causing suffering to the organism. My evidence for the bold assertion that suffering is bad is that I do not enjoy suffering or sensations of pain and the experiences that are most commonly described as "suffering" tend to be the ones that living organisms will avoid when possible (such as being eaten by a grizzly bear, being tortured by a sadistic psychopath, stepping barefooted on broken glass, or poking needles into ones eyes). I know that in your nihilistic view, there is nothing wrong with any of the above experiences and therefore there's nothing wrong with inflicting physical or psychological harm on people or animals; but that is certainly not typical of most living things.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 16, 2017 22:21:55 GMT
You made this statement earlier: "The purpose of harmful sensations (such as pain) exist in order to help the organism avoid danger." That statement is part of your argument, right? Do you believe that the statement is true, so that it could implicationally support other statements in an argument? My argument is that there are certain experiences and sensations that cause unpleasant sensations and aversions in living organisms. Those sensations are usually described as being painful or causing suffering to the organism. My evidence for the bold assertion that suffering is bad is that I do not enjoy suffering or sensations of pain and the experiences that are most commonly described as "suffering" tend to be the ones that living organisms will avoid when possible (such as being eaten by a grizzly bear, being tortured by a sadistic psychopath, stepping barefooted on broken glass, or poking needles into ones eyes). I know that in your nihilistic view, there is nothing wrong with any of the above experiences and therefore there's nothing wrong with inflicting physical or psychological harm on people or animals; but that is certainly not typical of most living things. Okay, wso we're dropping a lot of the previous comments, I guess. Re this: "such as being eaten by a grizzly bear, being tortured by a sadistic psychopath, stepping barefooted on broken glass, or poking needles into ones eyes"--if that's the sort of thing we're referring to by "suffering," how many people experience it? And re the people who do experience it, what percentage of their experience consists of it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 22:42:10 GMT
My argument is that there are certain experiences and sensations that cause unpleasant sensations and aversions in living organisms. Those sensations are usually described as being painful or causing suffering to the organism. My evidence for the bold assertion that suffering is bad is that I do not enjoy suffering or sensations of pain and the experiences that are most commonly described as "suffering" tend to be the ones that living organisms will avoid when possible (such as being eaten by a grizzly bear, being tortured by a sadistic psychopath, stepping barefooted on broken glass, or poking needles into ones eyes). I know that in your nihilistic view, there is nothing wrong with any of the above experiences and therefore there's nothing wrong with inflicting physical or psychological harm on people or animals; but that is certainly not typical of most living things. Okay, wso we're dropping a lot of the previous comments, I guess. Re this: "such as being eaten by a grizzly bear, being tortured by a sadistic psychopath, stepping barefooted on broken glass, or poking needles into ones eyes"--if that's the sort of thing we're referring to by "suffering," how many people experience it? And re the people who do experience it, what percentage of their experience consists of it? With respect to those specific examples, I don't know how many people experience those. But everyone, or very close to everyone experiences some form of suffering. Most common forms of suffering include physical pain, the burdens of sustaining life (which often includes working for long hours in unpleasant conditions, especially for those in developing nations), economic hardship, emotional trauma, etc. And the argument doesn't hinge on how much of the average person's experience consists of suffering, but on the fact that for some individuals, the amount of suffering outweighs the amount of pleasure gained from existence. The metaphor that I like to use is of an inverse progressive tax which places the heaviest burden on those least capable of tolerating the burden. To put it simply, the lives that consist mainly of suffering (such as the disabled, the chronically ill, the sweatshop workers who toil for long hours to produce clothes, the mentally ill who spend their lives locked up in asylums) are collateral damage for whatever benefits are derived from life by the people who are lucky enough that the pleasure outweighs the suffering. When you bring a new life into the world, they are potentially vulnerable to all risks. In a sample of 100 babies born on Earth, many of those babies will enjoy life; however some of those babies are going to go on to experience more suffering than they will enjoy pleasure. There is no known way of bringing the good lives into the world without also bringing the bad lives into the world; given that there is no method for equitably distributing risk and harm amongst all individuals. On the other hand, no babies will be born on Mars, and nobody will lament the lack of pleasurable experiences occurring on Mars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 22:58:21 GMT
It's not a moot point if your argument is that such and such is the case by definition. It's not by definition. So a few things need to be sorted out with this statement: "Sentient existence entails sensations of being harmed that it is observed that those organisms usually prefer to avoid" Just how are you empirically establishing this? It is an empirical claim. You'd need a way to quantify instances of being harmed, you'd need a rigorous definition of just what it is to be harmed (otherwise there would be no way to quantify instances), and then you'd need to do the empirical research re just what people think (per their reports) when it comes to those instances. That would be a lot of work, but before you'd begin, I'd suggest tackling this: just what do you believe "most people prefer x given situation y, most of the time" to imply? Does it imply anything other than itself (other than a repetition of the same statement)? The purpose of harmful sensations (such as pain) exist in order to help the organism avoid danger. That's actually fairly loaded, but let's say this is true Why would the evo-psych purpose override the human-decided purpose for it- like some of the stuff Cactus listed in a post above? You would have to grant greater authority to one over the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 23:08:29 GMT
The purpose of harmful sensations (such as pain) exist in order to help the organism avoid danger. That's actually fairly loaded, but let's say this is true Why would the evo-psych purpose override the human-decided purpose for it- like some of the stuff Cactus listed in a post above? You would have to grant greater authority to one over the other. Let's say that there are some people who don't mind suffering; that still means that you are imposing the risk of suffering on people who categorically DON'T want to endure it (myself, for one), and nobody can seem to come up with a good reason for why it is necessary to do so. And even the vast majority of those who can see a positive aspect to suffering would likely balk at prolonged and severe suffering with no abatement (like what is experienced by those with certain illnesses). We're also not exclusively talking about human lives, and it seems unlikely that animals come up with any of those rationalisations for why suffering is actually a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 1:24:04 GMT
Okay, wso we're dropping a lot of the previous comments, I guess. Re this: "such as being eaten by a grizzly bear, being tortured by a sadistic psychopath, stepping barefooted on broken glass, or poking needles into ones eyes"--if that's the sort of thing we're referring to by "suffering," how many people experience it? And re the people who do experience it, what percentage of their experience consists of it? With respect to those specific examples, I don't know how many people experience those. But everyone, or very close to everyone experiences some form of suffering. Most common forms of suffering include physical pain, the burdens of sustaining life (which often includes working for long hours in unpleasant conditions, especially for those in developing nations), economic hardship, emotional trauma, etc. And the argument doesn't hinge on how much of the average person's experience consists of suffering, but on the fact that for some individuals, the amount of suffering outweighs the amount of pleasure gained from existence. The metaphor that I like to use is of an inverse progressive tax which places the heaviest burden on those least capable of tolerating the burden. To put it simply, the lives that consist mainly of suffering (such as the disabled, the chronically ill, the sweatshop workers who toil for long hours to produce clothes, the mentally ill who spend their lives locked up in asylums) are collateral damage for whatever benefits are derived from life by the people who are lucky enough that the pleasure outweighs the suffering. When you bring a new life into the world, they are potentially vulnerable to all risks. In a sample of 100 babies born on Earth, many of those babies will enjoy life; however some of those babies are going to go on to experience more suffering than they will enjoy pleasure. There is no known way of bringing the good lives into the world without also bringing the bad lives into the world; given that there is no method for equitably distributing risk and harm amongst all individuals. On the other hand, no babies will be born on Mars, and nobody will lament the lack of pleasurable experiences occurring on Mars. Right, so one thing you'd need to do is forward a more rigorous definition of suffering, so we know just what counts and what doesn't. What would that rigorous definition of suffering be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 2:53:01 GMT
With respect to those specific examples, I don't know how many people experience those. But everyone, or very close to everyone experiences some form of suffering. Most common forms of suffering include physical pain, the burdens of sustaining life (which often includes working for long hours in unpleasant conditions, especially for those in developing nations), economic hardship, emotional trauma, etc. And the argument doesn't hinge on how much of the average person's experience consists of suffering, but on the fact that for some individuals, the amount of suffering outweighs the amount of pleasure gained from existence. The metaphor that I like to use is of an inverse progressive tax which places the heaviest burden on those least capable of tolerating the burden. To put it simply, the lives that consist mainly of suffering (such as the disabled, the chronically ill, the sweatshop workers who toil for long hours to produce clothes, the mentally ill who spend their lives locked up in asylums) are collateral damage for whatever benefits are derived from life by the people who are lucky enough that the pleasure outweighs the suffering. When you bring a new life into the world, they are potentially vulnerable to all risks. In a sample of 100 babies born on Earth, many of those babies will enjoy life; however some of those babies are going to go on to experience more suffering than they will enjoy pleasure. There is no known way of bringing the good lives into the world without also bringing the bad lives into the world; given that there is no method for equitably distributing risk and harm amongst all individuals. On the other hand, no babies will be born on Mars, and nobody will lament the lack of pleasurable experiences occurring on Mars. Right, so one thing you'd need to do is forward a more rigorous definition of suffering, so we know just what counts and what doesn't. What would that rigorous definition of suffering be? The rigorous definition of suffering is anything that a sentient being endures that creates unpleasant and unwelcome sensations. Anything that you are forced to endure that you do not want to endure is suffering. By bringing new life into the world, you force that individual to endure experiences that they would prefer not to endure.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 10:14:05 GMT
Right, so one thing you'd need to do is forward a more rigorous definition of suffering, so we know just what counts and what doesn't. What would that rigorous definition of suffering be? The rigorous definition of suffering is anything that a sentient being endures that creates unpleasant and unwelcome sensations. Anything that you are forced to endure that you do not want to endure is suffering. By bringing new life into the world, you force that individual to endure experiences that they would prefer not to endure. How are you quantifying: (a) the degree of pleasant/unpleasant or wanted/unwanted experiences, (b) the frequency of unpleasant or unwanted experiences versus pleasant or wanted experiences? And what are the metrics or algorithms for (a) relative frequency tempered by degree, and (b) generalized conclusions about this given the wide variance there's going to be among individuals?
|
|