I think that for something to be ethical, there has to have been the potential for something unethical to happen. If this is removed, morality can't be desired.

Well I'd say in regards to life evolving again, that would be beyond ones control. Also, it doesn't make sense to say that procreation is the only way to guarantee ethical action, because that is only valuable when there is a being to receive said ethical action.

But to say that it is morally virtuous to create a life of pleasure seems irrational to me. As it implies that if one is to avoid parenthood it is therefore a deprivation of pleasure for the potential lives one could create.

Ok, I can accept that supererogatory acts exist, but I don't believe that conceiving a child could be one, as it is not to anyone's benefit.

True, also I think it's kind of an inevitable cycle. I value the pleasure of those that are alive, and parenthood brings pleasure to many people. This is a cycle that I can't argue with and that will continue until the death of the species.

I see it this way: if it is a guaranteed way to eliminate suffering, without consequence, why aren't we partaking in it?

it seems indifferent to me to consider something "good" if refraining from doing so isn't bad. Also, considering the asymmetry: the absence of pain is good, but the absence of pleasure isn't bad, unless there is a being for which the absence is a deprivation.

It's hard to believe this and yet mourn a death or strive for ethical treatment.

It wouldn't. Equally, having an objective meaning wouldn't affect what matters to me as I'd just be a cog in a machine. Then again, I'm a determinist and a nihilist so I'm just a cog in a useless machine that has no purpose and cannot be stopped

By the way, what reason does a nihilist have for complying to certain morals? If they are meaningless statements, then why care about ethics?

Another issue I'm having is just having goals in life. I think this is in part because of COVID, as this wasn't an issue beforehand, but starting college is a tormenting concept to me, as any future path seems pointless and like it will amount to nothing.

Well a nihilist can't debate anything then, without being contradictory to this sentiment.

What I don't like about philosophy is that you have to accept certain assumptions that cannot possibly be proven in any manner. There is a certain point in every argument in which you have to say "well just because", and this is when I feel often that the argument itself is pointless. For example, when considering what is ethical in a debate, you have to assume that suffering is bad and that pleasure is good, because there is no conceivable way to progress otherwise.

just because nobody knows something is the case, that doesn't make it not the case. If a superior being placed that inscription, which was decipherable to them but not anyone in our realm, it would have meaning .

I guess that is why, yes. The whole "make the most of the one life you have" argument seems to implicitly claim that life has value. Then again, you weren't explicitly saying it in those words. I think finitude and meaninglessness is necessary for existence. I wonder if it could be that reality could have been any other way? If not, then I guess it's counter-intuitive to let it bother me. Although I could be pedantic and say that what I "want" doesn't matter, so the fact that I want to stop thinking about it makes no difference to the reality of it, and equally how it affects me is indifferent.

Say there was one objective meaning that some superior being knew, like it was beyond our knowledge. This is unlikely but I can't say with certainty that it isn't the case. This would make like therefore not meaningless, but it would remain that there is no way of objectively proving meaning.

But why should I get beyond this rut? If it leads me into manic depression and then suicide then why not? Since these questions have no answer, I struggle to actively avoid these thoughts.

but just because there is no way of KNOWING anything objectively, that doesn't mean that there can't be objectivity. Epistemological nihilism is the claim that nothing CAN BE KNOWN, not that nothing exists. Therefore, life could or could not have meaning, we just can't know for sure.

This last point is a very good one. I know it makes just as little sense to have a "meaning" to life", than to have none, but for some reason it doesn't stop me from dwelling on the fact that no action has perminance or value at all, and this leads to me struggling to have goals or value in what I want to do. I think my issue is that I will one day die. Because that is guaranteed, I don't feel like there is any point in doing literally anything. If immortality was guaranteed, or if death was a choice, I feel like I wouldn't have these worries. Then again, infinity is just as inconceivable as finitude is to me.

yes, I have been intending on reading that, will do later.

In that hypothetical you are assuming that survival, as an instrinsic good, should be strived towards. The main goal of that hypothetical is to make sure you survive. There is no goal to reality so there is therefore no way to act in order to attain this ideal.

This is the best response in the thread.

Well all of these acts amount to absolutely nothing, because the human race, as well as the entire planet, will one day cease to exist.

this is the response I receive almost all of the time. "You make your own meaning". This rarely helps me overcome the depression that I experience, as it's just a means of saying "why not" in different words. It makes sense that life cannot have meaning, but that doesn't give me any comfort, unfortunately. It would have the same outcome whether I kill myself or not, and the same goes for every living thing.

could it not be argued that heroism is an obligation? Again, just being pedantic to express that there is no true definition or differentiation between obligation and virtue.

I do understand your point, but the idea to do what is good (pleasure is good) only applies to the living. The idea to avoid what is bad (pain is bad) in Benetar's belief can apply to both life and potential life. In developing the asymmetrical argent, I have personally come to the conclusion that the absence of pleasure is not as negative as the absence of pain is positive. Therefore it is overall the best thing to do (not existing that is) and the desire to do what is good (pleasure) can be overridden by the greater good (preventing all pain, which is far worse). As I have previously stated, suffering is far more objective and intense. I do not believe that the most intense pleasure can outweigh the most intense pain, therefore pleasure and pain are not direct opposites. The contradiction Benetar makes, saying that the absence of pleasure isn't bad, may be answered, in my opinion, with the idea that it IS bad, but it is not as bad as it is good to eliminate pain as an entity. I know this is hard to measure and therefore suffers in terms of validity, but it makes sense to me and the term "asymmetry" can still be applied. Benetar, as previously mentioned, would claim that the lack of pleasure to an existing being is bad, but to a potential being is good. The lack of pain to an existing being AND a potential being is good in both cases. The basis on which he justifies this may be the imbalance (or asymmetry) of pleasure and pain. I can understand that, conceptually, if I were not to be born, I would be indifferent to not having experienced the pleasures in life. However, my indifference may not extend to pain, and it is preferable to me to not be born into pain, and indifferent to me to be born into pleasure. You treat pleasure and pain as direct opposites like ph 1 and ph 14 or -50 degrees and +50 degrees Celsius. I don't have this view and I don't believe that the neutral pH 7 can be reached with the same amount of pleasure and pain (bad analogy sorry). I'm sure a lot of people who use this forum have masters degrees and PhDs I'm just a bored 16 year old in quarantine who has an interest but I'm trying to improve my rationality on complex topics.

I may vaguely connotate this point with the sentiment that it is an obligation to dedicate one's life to the ultimate minimalisation of suffering in the world, and subsequent management of resources. This may be financial, to charities that support children (and all who are in poverty) or this could be in individual research. I'm being pedantic but you see my point about basing argument on flimsy and subjective foundation.

I understand the underlying contradiction that if a thing is good, then surely the absence of said thing is bad. However, I believe that point 5 is disregarded in the asymmetry, and your argument is that point 5 is implied by point 1. Benetar would disagree that pleasure therefore deems importance. In addition, I believe that [good and not bad] (Extinction) is better than [good and bad] (Existence). Although, as I have previously stated there does seem to be some contradiction in the idea that pleasure and pain are asymmetrical.

This is true, although it was not an obligation for you to inform me, only virtuous. :) Or was it? I suppose I'm not going to find an objectively, exclusively virtuous action as it is very subjective. I just struggle to appreciate arguments in specific fields when the foundation of obligation Vs virtue has little definition.

points 4 and 5 are a direct contradiction. Benetar's point is exactly the opposite of point 5 and I assume he is pro-extinction to some extent. You either agree with him or you don't, which is fine either way but you can't have both. I personally have not made my decision on whether the deprivation of pain is inherently negative yet. It certainly seems to make sense to me that if I am not to exist, I have no preference and therefore not coming into being is a state of neutrality. Even in modern life, it appears that there are objective forms of pain but only subjective pleasure, that may be more intense to each person based on exposure to such pleasure. As Siddhartha Gautama believed, greatfulness of certain material desires dwindles, and only true happiness can prevail. As happiness is subjective to each person, so therefore is pleasure. I'm rambling, take no notice of me.

I don't think I explained well enough. My point is that for that potential being, a lack of existence is preferable in hindsight. I don't believe that their lack of being disregards this, as I have previously given with the animals. Take this hypothetical: your parents want to either have a child and subject the baby to intense pain or simply not have the child, wouldn't you prefer the latter?

Because out of two situations: one in which you are born and suffer, and another in which you are not born, it is most ethical to take the latter, wouldn't you agree? As a vegan, this is a common belief about animal agriculture; it is more ethical to stop breeding animals to put them in terrible conditions than to continue. Why can't this be applied to an extreme scale logically?

I could argue that it is your responsibility to enlighten those who are unaware of the truth, as it may cause them harm in the future.

that is making the assumption that the avoidance of suffering is only valuable to those that currently live. Again, to reference Benatar's asymmetry, (you may disagree), to not have been born is more ethical, as to avoid pain is inherently good, but to avoid pleasure is neutral (when considering hindsight and nonexistence).

I am familiar with Benatar's asymmetry, and book "better never to have been", this is why I am referencing it.

I appreciate the sentiment, and am not depressed by any means myself, but I am merely taking a rationalist perspective (or trying to). "Love" is an extension of pleasure, which I am deeming to be unnecessary when considering not having been born. These are very complex and subjective questions.

taking the asymmetry into account, the lack of joy or pleasure isn't inherently bad. You may disagree with this premise.

I've watched a documentary about the man with the seven second memory and, to no offense to the victim, I find that to be the worst torture imaginable. In my opinion, if it were me, that state is similar to death as he claimed to have been "conscious" for the first time in the years since his disease took over, but he claims this every seven seconds in an endless prison of his own nothingness. I personally would rather be dead, and have incredible respect for his acceptance of it.

Its mainly the indifference to having lived that is a conundrum to me. If my parents weren't to have conceived me, then there would be no loss there. However, if I die, it is therefore a tragedy. As I will not have memory of having lived, not being born and dying are identical states to me. Therefore, it shouldn't matter when or how I die.

I think someone once used the analogy that just because I'm enjoying a meal, doesn't mean I have to be sad when I am finished. However, if I went to an event and enjoyed it, only to have had my memory of the past week wiped, I would argue that there was no purpose in going to said event. If I knew that this memory wipe was approaching, I wouldn't bother doing anything that week, as I wouldn't recall it.
Ps I can't figure out how to quite effectively