• Bartricks
    6k
    It seems clear that death is inevitable for anyone living here. And it seems equally clear that death is a considerable harm. Our reason tells us to do virtually anything to avoid it. If avoiding it means sawing your arm off, reason recommends doing that. And even if your life is relatively joyless and/or contains more unhappiness than happiness, our reason still bids us not kill ourselves. Indeed, we only seem to have reason to die if we are in absolute agony without any prospect of it ending. Mild misery, mild discomfort, even when there is no prospect of them ending, do not seem to give us reason to seek death.

    Consider what this implies: it implies death is incredibly harmful. So harmful, indeed, that any amount of mildly miserable life here is rationally preferable. It does not seem to matter how long the mildly miserable life promises to be - its very mildness means that at no point in its duration will you have overall reason to seek death. Which implies that the harmfulness of death is not some one-off harm, like a toothache or stubbed toe, but instead consists of a permanently altered condition - a condition altered for the worse. For example, imagine that you know that you will have to suffer agony tomorrow, but only tomorrow and the rest of your life here will be so-so. Do you have reason to seek death to avoid that episode of intense agony tomorrow? No, surely not. It would be irrational to kill oneself just to avoid that one-off episode of agony, precisely because it is going to end. If it was not going to end - if the remainder of any life here would be characterized by that agony, then yes, you have reason to exit this realm. But if the agony is going to end, then you have reason to try and stay. That would make sense if death, rather than being a one-off harm, instead condemns one to a worse existence - that is, it would make sense if death was not the end, but just the point at which one is transferred to a worse state of being.

    If this is true, then we who already exist here find ourselves in a terrible predicament: even if at the moment our lives are giving us much more pleasure than pain, that is doomed to end. We are fated to enter another realm in which our lives will continue, but not in our interests.

    If that is correct - and I think there is more reason to think it is than it isn't - then it would be a terrible thing to make it someone else's predicament as well. Bad enough that we are in it, wicked to make others join us in it. And thus if I am right above, then bringing people into our situation would be a very evil thing to do.

    Most people do not believe that death makes our situation worse. They believe one of two things - either that death transfers us to a much better place of milk and honey, or they think death marks the cessation of our existence. Comforting though both views may be, neither has any rational support. Indeed, the first seems ludicrous - if death took us to a better place, then it'd be in our best interests to die and we should rejoice when anyone is killed and look forward to our own demise. Yet it is manifest to reason that it is not in our best interests to die - not unless our life here has become unbearably rotten - and that the death of another is something to be regretted, not rejoiced at.

    The idea that our deaths mark the cessation of our existence fares no better. There is no evidence that they cease our existence. After all, if they did then how could they harm us? As Epicurus put it, if they cease our existence, then "where death is, we are not, and where we are, death is not". But you can't be harmed by something that never happens to you. So death would not be something we would have any reason to avoid - yet clearly we do have reason to avoid it, under all but the most terrible of circumstances.

    The 'common sense' views described above seem to be mere exercises in wishful thinking. They express worldviews that we have no evidential reason to believe in - a religious worldview on the one hand, and the naturalist worldview on the other. But they enjoy no support from reason at all. If we listen to reason, then reason tells us that our deaths are considerable harms and that we have reason to avoid them, even if our lives are not recording a profit in terms of happiness versus unhappiness. This implies that death is not a one off intense harm, in the way that breaking a leg is. But rather, that death alters our condition - that it takes us from here to somewhere worse. And if that is true, then our situation is truly a awful one and we do a great wrong if we voluntarily bring anyone else into it.
  • theRiddler
    260
    Yes, I'm sure the vast proliferation of life is a conspiracy.

    You've considered death. Now consider that the content of every person's life is, without surety, instinctively regarded as greater, and tell me what that implies.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    530


    It's our DNA that compels us to desperately avoid death. And how can we trust our DNA when it's what's compelling us to drag poor souls into existence?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Do you think you have reason to avoid death?
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    Our reason tells us to do virtually anything to avoid it.Bartricks

    I looked on line and it said that more than half of people in the US are not particularly afraid of dying. Only about 10% are very afraid. Perhaps you are in that 10%, but don't expect the rest of us to follow along.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    My claim is that we have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances. Are you challenging that claim?

    I am sure most Americans believe they're going to heaven when they die and that's why they're not afraid. These are psychological matters of no interest to me. (Ask most Americans if killing yourself is a good idea to avoid the pain of having a root canal done, and they are going to say that no, that's not a good idea, but a really stupid one. So even if they're not afraid of death, they recognize the stupidity of seeking it out and employing it as a solution to mild problems).

    What do Norwegians think?

    Most people would agree, would they not, that we have reason to avoid death under all but the most extreme circumstances? That is why if you tell someone that eating x will kill you, they will generally avoid eating x. And so on.

    Consider this exchange:

    Jack is stuck down this cave and it is filling with water. We need to go down and there and pull him out!

    "Why? He'll only die."

    It is undeniable that we have powerful reason to avoid death (and by extension, powerful reason to help others avoid it). The interesting philosophical question is why, exactly, we have reason to avoid death, not 'whether' we do.

    Note, if you reject my conclusion by rejecting that we have reason to avoid death (extreme circumstances aside), then you have rejected my conclusion on the basis of a ludicrous claim. If those are the lengths you are driven to, I have made a very powerful case.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    530


    Do you think you have reason to avoid death?Bartricks

    Yes, to avoid missing out on a good life, and to avoid causing grief to our loved ones.

    Your point about the after-life potentially being worse is something I've gave serious thought about before. I see it as an equal possibility to the alternatives.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Yes, to avoid missing out on a good life, and to avoid causing grief to our loved ones.Down The Rabbit Hole

    Do you have reason to avoid death if your life is mildly miserable (or just so-so) and you have no loved ones?

    If you kill such a person - and lets face it, there are loads of them around - has no harm been done?

    Your point about the after-life potentially being worse is something I've gave serious thought about before. I see it as an equal possibility to the alternatives.Down The Rabbit Hole

    But you hadn't encountered my argument above before - it does not imply that it is just one possibility among other equally likely ones. It implies that it is the most likely possibility.

    Consider: if death is the end, then it is not harmful at all and we have no reason to avoid it.

    And if death improves our situation, then it is not harmful at all and we have no reason to avoid it.
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    My claim is that we have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances. Are you challenging that claim?Bartricks

    It's not true of me. It's not true of most of my friends and family. It wasn't true of my father while he was dying of lung cancer. I'm enjoying my life, so I'm in no hurry to be gone, but when the time comes, I'll be ready.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    530


    No I don't think so. Our DNA wouldn't care about our miserable life thought, all it cares about is spreading.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    It's not true of me.T Clark

    That wasn't my question - for all I know you might be on fire, in which case you may well have reason to exit. Death may not be contrary to the interests of lots of people (which only adds to the case for antinatalism, incidentally). But it 'is' contrary to the interests of most of us, most of the time. My question was whether we generally have reason to avoid death - and the answer to that is an obvious 'yes'. It's why we generally try not to kill people - it's why wars and deadly viruses are bad. They kill people. Which is harmful, yes?

    And do people whose lives are just so-so have no reason to avoid death? No, they too have powerful reason to avoid death. Agony with no prospect of an end, yes - death is now plausibly in one's interest. A so-so life with no prospect of it being anything other than so so - no, they still have powerful reason to avoid dying. (This refutes 'deprivation' accounts of the harmfulness of death - death is harmful even when it does not deprive one of anything worth having).

    And as for those whose circumstances are such that death is in their best interests, it is still a harm, is it not? It is the lesser of two evils. But it isn't beneficial. When a person jumps out of a burning building to spare themselves a horrific and slow death, their death from the fall is not good for them, but bad for them - just not as bad as the alternative.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Why are you talking about DNA? I am not talking about what people actually do or making any claim about what causes them to do it. I am talking about what we have reason to do.

    We have reason to avoid dying under all but the most extreme circumstances. That's not a controversial claim. Denying it would be - extremely so.

    And death is a harm whenever it occurs. That's not controversial either. It may sometimes be the lesser harm (as when a person is in agony and can't escape the agony apart from by killing themselves), but it is still a harm.

    So, we have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances, and reason to avoid it even when our lives are just so-so and there is no prospect of them being anything other than so-so.

    What does that tell us about death? It tells us it changes our condition for the worse. It doesn't tell us that it eradicates us or benefits us.

    And what does that mean - it means we're all going down the plughole to hell whether we like it or not. Some may be in more tepid water than others - some may be having a lovely swim. But we're all going down the plughole nevertheless. Is it moral to bring an innocent child into the water with you?
  • I love Chom-choms
    65
    So,
    Indeed, we only seem to have reason to die if we are in absolute agony without any prospect of it ending. Mild misery, mild discomfort, even when there is no prospect of them ending, do not seem to give us reason to seek death.Bartricks

    I imagine that this claim should be viable for people of all regions, at all points of time.
    If so, then the Vikings worshipped death. Death was the door to another world. They chose death over a life of a farmer or a pastoralist. Death over a life of comfort. How do you justify your claim with respect to the Vikings?
  • Banno
    25k
    A neat piece of research, showing how flawed the basic assumption in the OP is. Nice.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    How do you justify your claim with respect to the Vikings?I love Chom-choms

    I direct them to the argument in the OP.

    Note, if one 'believes' that death is the door to a better land, then of course one will believe that one has reason to die. But believing something doesn't make it true.

    Now, is death the door to a better land? How does one figure that out? Does one ask a Viking? Do you believe that our main source of insight into how things are with the world are 'the Vikings'? You think a good way to learn about the world is to consult ancient people with batshit crazy worldviews?

    Reasonable people use their reason to figure out what's what. And our reason tells us that death is a harm - that we have reason to avoid it. That's why people were frightened of vikings - they killed people. That's why they ran away rather than saying 'ooo, vikings! We're all going to die - woohoo!!'

    So, it's harmful - really harmful. It wouldn't be if it was a door to a lovely land of milkshake rivers and chocolate bar trees. So.....it isn't a door to a lovely land of milkshake rives and chocolate bar trees.

    It's a plughole to hell.

    And you're being told, in no uncertain terms, to try and not go down it - to delay it as long as possible unless you're in untold unending agony.

    So, if you're clever, you'll conclude that the plughole doesn't go to a nice place. Plughole goes nasty place. Plughole bad.

    If someone is screaming at you - and everyone else in the giant sink - 'for christ's sake, try not to go down the plughole!!! Fight, fight, fight the current. Fight for all you're worth!' - do you conclude "that plughole must go to somewhere great! That's what the Vikings thought - and they were the wisest people of all time!"

    So don't bring anyone else into the water because anyone in the water goes down the plughole eventually. Fight the current, but have the decency to do it alone and don't make your problem someone else's.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    No, an irrelevant piece of research that in no way challenges anything in the OP. As I explained.

    So far I've had one person tell me that it is Vikings - not reason - who hold the key to understanding how things are with the universe. And now, it seems, that it is not Vikings, but the Americans that we should be consulting.

    Quality stuff.
  • I love Chom-choms
    65
    You misunderstood.
    Your argument is that because we choose to live even if we experience suffering(except the extreme circumstances), then the other alternative-Death, must be worse that the current suffering that we experience.
    If that is wrong then I am sorry for misunderstand you.
    If that is right then my question is this- vikings also suffered great pain in their pursuit of Valhalla. they could have avoided that pain and lived a peaceful life. So I could say that because the vikings choose Death over a happy, peaceful life then this means that Death is a better option. So, we should all chase Death, For it is Paradise!

    Those who ran away from the Vikings? Bah! They are unreasonable people who don't realize that Death is Paradise. Let them run! They will rot in Helheim.
  • I love Chom-choms
    65
    I dont endorse Viking behavior. I think that what you call reasonable and the logical conclusion is based on the idea that we have complete information. Its also a bit circular. I can rephrase your argument as-

    Because most people think that Death is bad, Death must be bad

    You use the fact that most people fear Death to conclude that Death must be fearful.
    BUT you are assuming that the opinion of the masses is correct. They are making well-informed decisions.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Quote me saying any of those things.
  • I love Chom-choms
    65
    Than is why I said
    If that is wrong then I am sorry for misunderstand you.I love Chom-choms

    Please tell me where I am wrong
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I said that we have reason to avoid death.
    Do you agree?
  • I love Chom-choms
    65
    I dont know about reason but I can say that we have an instinct to avoid it.

    I guess I disagree that we have a reason.
    " I dont know what come after Death then why should I avoid it?"
    That is the rational part.
    Instinctually, I want to avoid it
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I asked if you had 'reason' to avoid death. I did not ask about our instincts. Crikey.

    If eating x will kill you, do you think you have reason not to eat it?

    Focus.
  • I love Chom-choms
    65
    yes, I do

    But that reason to not eat x is based on my assumption that- Death is bad
    IF Death was good, THEN I similarly have a reason to eat it
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Is that because it would harm you?
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    First, the good news: There's an afterlife.
    Now the bad news: The afterlife is in hell!

    Suicide ceases to make sense then: From the frying pan into the fire!
  • Existential Hope
    789
    Even if death does not end our consciousness, it does not mean that it would be better for one to not exist. For all we know, it could also be the case that consciousness always exists and is much worse than existence, which would be the only source of recourse one would have. I do not think we seek to avoid death purely because of its harm; we also do so because of the potency an ineffably meaningful life can have, even if we do not currently possess sufficient joy (which is something that can and often does change). Much of the harm of death (for the person) comes from the loss of the potential good one could experience. However, this does not mean that the good one has experienced has no worth. Furthermore, the lack of death cannot have any value for one who has no life in the first place. If the prevented harm is "good" in an abstract sense, I think that the lack of all value is also problematic.
  • Existential Hope
    789
    Some hell, some heaven.

    Some sense, some lack thereof.

    Anyway, I hope that everybody here has a nice day/night! :)
  • Bartricks
    6k
    So, just to be clear, all you are saying is that if my argument is sound, then it is sound?

    What's the point in saying that? If the earth is flat, then it is flat. If it is spherical, then it is spherical.

    All you are doing is, in effect, just playing the tedious "How do we know anything?" card, card that one plays when anyone makes any argument for anything.

    Now do try and engage with the argument. Understand that if you can only resist it by challenging whether we know anything at all, then the argument is a strong one. Similarly, if you have to insist that we have no reason to avoid death - a claim so obviously false it is akin to insisting that 2 + 3 = 8.6billion - then you have lost the argument.
  • Deleted User
    -1
    You've considered death. Now consider that the content of every person's life is, without surety, instinctively regarded as greater, and tell me what that implies.theRiddler

    Can you provide clarity on this statement? It could mean many things at once depending on one's current perceptual orientation.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.