If we know pain and suffering exist, why then would it be justified to bring more people into a world with known and unknown amounts of pain and suffering? — schopenhauer1
What do you think? I do not think pain/suffering is redemptive. — schopenhauer1
Contrary to Benatar's Asymmetry, I believe it is the net experience that matters. To take it to the extremes to prove my point, I would take some minor negative experiences for a life otherwise full of pleasure, but I would (obviously) not take some minor positive experiences for a life otherwise full of pain. — Down The Rabbit Hole
At times I find life really painful but I do think life can be worth living because we can create and find ways of overcoming physical and emotional pain in most instances. — Jack Cummins
Again, the only pain that is truly bad is the pain you can't fix. Most of us don't have that. Pain and suffering come and go, and there are other ways to cope with it when we cannot address the underlying cause of the pain itself.
I just don't understand why experiencing pain would be an argument against existing. Could you propose why? — Philosophim
Tell me/us why 'procreation' ought to be "justified".180 Proof
If we know the world has known and unknown amounts of suffering, what is the justification of bringing people into this? — schopenhauer1
Tell me/us why 'procreation' ought to be "justified". — 180 Proof
Your argument is in agreement with truths as they stand but these are contingent truths, something you've failed to address in your post. Is it absolutely necessary that life and suffering have to go together? — TheMadFool
But what if life is free from suffering? Would you still feel or think it would be not worth starting? — TheMadFool
You seem to be ignoring the question I asked you. Why does the fact that someone will experience pain alone negate all the other things in life like happiness, success, learning, etc in life? — Philosophim
Any belief that life is not worth starting must rest on the assumption that it is not living, surely? — Jack Cummins
Also, a belief that life is not worth starting is a far too simple philosophical statement to address the problem of pain, which is a part of life for all living beings. — Jack Cummins
it is simply stating that people do not have drives because they do not exist. It is as pointless as saying that triangles don't have 3 sides until they are put on paper. It is meaningless statement ultimately. — Jack Cummins
Surely, it is better for us to make the world the best place we can for future generations rather than saying that these generations should not exist. — Jack Cummins
While human beings are likely to suffer to some extent they may have pleasure and happiness too. — Jack Cummins
That in itself is black and white thinking because while suffering is not necessarily good suffering is the source of innovation. — Jack Cummins
How many of the greatest artists, poets and musicians would have created their greatest works if they had not touched down to the depths of pain and suffering? — Jack Cummins
How many of the greatest artists, poets and musicians would have created their greatest works if they had not touched down to the depths of pain and suffering? Scientific progress is spurred on to provide happiness rather than pain. So, what I would argue is that while pain and suffering are not good in themselves they are an inevitable part of life in providing motivation. In that sense, suffering is neither all bad or good but a core part of evolution in the past and future. — Jack Cummins
do you really wish that you had never come into existence at all? — Jack Cummins
Also, you do say that ideally utopia would be better? Perhaps this ideal is worth thinking about as a imaginative possibility. I know that it is difficult to create utopia. Even if it is not possible to create a world free from suffering highest dreams and ethical ideals are a starting point for more desirable futures for future generations. — Jack Cummins
More nonsense. 'A causes B' iff BOTH necessary AND sufficient conditions are met. For example, 'leading a jackass to water' may be a necessary condition but alone is insufficent for causing this jackass 'to think'.Causes =Is a necessary condition for. Is the definition I'm going with. — khaled
It can be easy, in any philosophical topic, to be bogged down in word semantics. Whether or not it is 'bad' that no life exists on a foreign planet, I maintain that if every life that could be created would experience net positive, it would be the morally correct thing to bring them into existence. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Is that (A) "I don't know why" or (B) "I think it's self-evident why"? — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.