Tragedies befall the living. — Thorongil
Tragedy schmadgedy. In the fullness of time all suffering will end -- as will all the goods of life, and life itself. — Bitter Crank
tragedy can't exist in the absence of people (although the word is hugely devalued, someone's dog dying is considered a tragedy nowadays.) — Wayfarer
There's really no use saying that 'it would be better not to be born' because the reality of our situation is that we have been. I think it's a case of 'the only way out is through' - which means learning to accept the reality of existence in the first place. — Wayfarer
Do you think that there is some duty, to bring new experiencers of good in the world? — schopenhauer1
Let us say that you assumed the child was going to have over 50% good experiences. Let us assume that you also somehow knew the likelihood of this percentage was very high. — schopenhauer1
Literally speaking, you're right. But there are the people who will be born, and that involves a choice. — Marchesk
No, but people are going to be born into the world whether we like it or not, and so we do have a duty to maintain civilization for them. Society is a contract between those who are dead, those who are now living, and those who will be born, as Burke says. — Thorongil
Well, in order to have good experiences, and indeed to know what the good is, I think some degree of trial and error, and therefore suffering, is necessary, so I don't see how this scenario is even thinkable. It seems as though you're talking about someone who will live a more or less pleasant life, but a pleasant life is not necessarily a good life. And what of those individuals who voluntarily undergo suffering? Once again, I would not equate suffering with evil or the bad. In and of itself it might be these things, but it can also be the fleetest animal that bears one to perfection, as Meister Eckhart says. — Thorongil
I merely say it's inappropriate to refer to what doesn't exist as if it does exist. So, the question posed would more properly be stated (I think) as "Is it a tragedy if a person does not experience the goods of life?" — Ciceronianus the White
But the question is whether we have a duty to bring about goodness in the first place, not maintain what we have — schopenhauer1
Is a world without people to experience goods of life a tragedy, if so why? — schopenhauer1
But, again, does goodness, in whatever form you take that to be, have to be perpetuated? — schopenhauer1
In other words, is it a tragedy of no new people are born to experience the goods of life? — schopenhauer1
Not quite, I think it can be reformulated as, "If no new person was born to experience the goods of life, would this be a tragedy?". Or it could be stated, "Is a world without people to experience the goods of life a tragedy? If so, why? So if that is correct question to ask, what is your answer to it? — schopenhauer1
because I don't think the world would be a disaster or calamity in our absence. — Ciceronianus the White
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.