Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 3:17:13 GMT
Sept 16, 2017 2:39:24 GMT @miccee said:
By the very definition of suffering, it is a sensation that organisms seek to avoid, and is tied to an 'ought'. As in 'suffering ought not to happen'. There's no such thing as enjoyable suffering, it is always repellent.Even if "suffering is bad" is not an objective truth; that's a very feeble excuse for exposing living organisms to the risk of suffering without a very compelling reason for why it needs to happen. You've offered up a very strong dismissal of antinatalism, so surely you must have come to that conclusion based on something rather stronger than 'suffering is not objectively bad'?
(It's not that you can't use an idiosyncratic definition, by the way, but that's going to be more problematic for making the sort of argument you want to make--"Such and such is the case, and the justification for that is the definition . . . well, at least if you use my definition." That's not going to be very persuasive.)
1. uncountable noun
Suffering is serious pain which someone feels in their body or their mind.
They began to recover slowly from their nightmare of pain and suffering.
It has caused terrible suffering to animals.
His many novels have portrayed the sufferings of his race.
Synonyms: pain, torture, distress, agony More Synonyms of suffering
www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/suffering
Whatever you want to call it, or whether it's objective or not, being born causes people and animals to be exposed to sensations that are going to be unpleasant and which they would rather have avoided. Although the unborn person would also not experience any of the sensations that a live person would wish to experience, nor will they experience any deprivation of those pleasurable experiences. Thus, there is no compelling ethical reason why this is a gamble that ought to be taken.