"Would you rather be sleeping?" Morality
I'm going to provide an unorthodox argument for the case of never being born being optimal. I'm going to call it the "Would you rather be sleeping?" argument (WYRBS for short). This isn't any knockdown argument for antinatalism. It is very soft. I have provided much stronger and more analytic claims before, but I do want to present this one as I feel it is more immediate to everyday living.
If throughout the regular course of the day, you would rather be non-existent/asleep/unconscious than doing that particular task/chore/thing-at-hand, then it was better never having been for those moments. If those moments add up to a majority of the day, it may be the case that it was better never to have been more generally. Similarly, if what you are doing is neutral to the point where you would not mind switching out the task-at-hand for sleeping, that also counts for this argument.
This is a strong statement, so there will be a strong blow-back from the self-appointed pragmatists that want to prove it wrong (and any antinatalist sentiment for that matter). But before you get high and mighty consider a couple things:
1) There are a lot of de facto things in the context of living in any given human social system. I'd rather be sleeping than clothes shopping or grocery shopping. I'd rather be sleeping than working on various spreadsheets or reading technical material that isn't interesting but necessary. I'd rather be sleeping than doing a lot of various tasks throughout the day big and small.
2) Due to number 1, a lot of times you really can't maximize much of your situation. Sometimes there is no good alternative. All options lead to rather be sleeping is better. I know the pragmatic (mixed with Pollyanna) types are just going to claim that one must change one's actions to orient to doing things that one would prefer more than sleeping. I just think that the de facto options of a normal human life may actually skew towards preferable to be sleeping. The extremo-philes that claim that bungee jumping, sky diving, and the pragmatic everyday types that think that reading and doing menial tasks can be "Zen-like" I think are both glossing over the fact that much of the time, sleep can either be switched out or is downright more preferable than the X task at hand.
If throughout the regular course of the day, you would rather be non-existent/asleep/unconscious than doing that particular task/chore/thing-at-hand, then it was better never having been for those moments. If those moments add up to a majority of the day, it may be the case that it was better never to have been more generally. Similarly, if what you are doing is neutral to the point where you would not mind switching out the task-at-hand for sleeping, that also counts for this argument.
This is a strong statement, so there will be a strong blow-back from the self-appointed pragmatists that want to prove it wrong (and any antinatalist sentiment for that matter). But before you get high and mighty consider a couple things:
1) There are a lot of de facto things in the context of living in any given human social system. I'd rather be sleeping than clothes shopping or grocery shopping. I'd rather be sleeping than working on various spreadsheets or reading technical material that isn't interesting but necessary. I'd rather be sleeping than doing a lot of various tasks throughout the day big and small.
2) Due to number 1, a lot of times you really can't maximize much of your situation. Sometimes there is no good alternative. All options lead to rather be sleeping is better. I know the pragmatic (mixed with Pollyanna) types are just going to claim that one must change one's actions to orient to doing things that one would prefer more than sleeping. I just think that the de facto options of a normal human life may actually skew towards preferable to be sleeping. The extremo-philes that claim that bungee jumping, sky diving, and the pragmatic everyday types that think that reading and doing menial tasks can be "Zen-like" I think are both glossing over the fact that much of the time, sleep can either be switched out or is downright more preferable than the X task at hand.
Comments (94)
I am not sure what you mean exactly. Why is reaffirming choices that are neutral to tedious so good anyways? I am not sure what is so holy about the act of reaffirming lukewarm to negative experiences. Yay reaffirming! (in a wimpering tone)..
Quoting tim wood
This I don't get other than another version of as predicted this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
To which I said:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I love sleep, but sleep is so much better after a fulfilling day. So I do not think trading being awake for being asleep is very wise, because one requires the other. And I do not think sleep is in anyway comparable to non-existence.
You didn't really read the OP. It wasn't about fulfilling things switching out with sleep. And you didn't read the as-predicted rebuttals, because I can already predict your response to this post. I didn't say sleep was non-existence. It certainly isn't waking life though, by definition. Think harder.
I did really read it. I figured the gist of it, beyond the jargon and labelling, was that if you prefer sleep to being awake you would probably prefer non-existence to existence, as if they were in some way comparable.
Ah, that's what you got out of it- a debate on the ontology of sleep vs. non-existence. Yes we all know they are not the same thing. Doesn't mean that not being conscious the waking-kind-of-way is not the gist here.
I got out of it a bad argument for antinatalism, or “never being born being optimal”, which you stated before you started playing “would you rather” with sleep.
Fine, replace it with "Sleep being optimal".. argument still stands in the waking-kind-of-way thing.
That’s fair. I apologize for pooh-poohing your argument.
Agree!
I'm 84...and although I've had my share of hard times, I've lived a great life. Glad it came along. Still getting lots of kicks...and have no desire for it to end soon, although I am not in favor of a "last few years" of the kind I've seen some live. I hope the ending, when it comes, comes quick. Standing in the doorway of that warehouse that exploded in Beirut would have made a fine good-bye.
Doesn't sound as though Shopenhauer is having much fun on his trip through this life.
Hope that turns around.
Can we divorce the preference for sleeping from the pleasure of waking up feeling refreshed? Or the comfort of snuggling up in bed while trying to go to sleep? Also, most people wouldn't wish to sleep all the time, right?
Very poetic notions and true...for some. Having had insomnia for several years I can attest that even sleep can be a burden.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What's wrong with clothes shopping? Is the store crowded or shabby, prices too high, don't have what you want to wear? Just not a vain person, casual white T-shirt and blue jeans and you're good to go? That's great. More power to you, rather more time and energy to spend on productive things. The same with grocery shopping. Not of a discerning palette? Just need something you're able to stomach to fill you up some and you're set? Again, all that better. You have to prefer either clothes or food in a non-essential kind of way. What's wrong with doing so in a perfect environment, with enough funds, and enough time to do so- hypothetically. A gorgeous, vast building inspired by the collective progress of human architecture since the dawn of time (or if that's not your thing a cozy little shop) to peruse through an incredible selection that consists of goods from not only all corners of the Earth but even entire periods of time? Personally I think you've just become complacent and accustomed to what others who came before you could never fathom in their wildest dreams. You can be feasting on the finest American beef, prime Italian cuisine, exquisite Asian delicacies, exotic Middle Eastern favorites, and more in a matter of mere minutes without even leaving your couch for goodness sake. Imagine a poor working class person in the Middle Ages entering a Wal-Mart for the first time. They'd think they died and went to Heaven. I don't know man, complacency is it's own punishment.
Computers are fun. Would you rather keep track with pen and paper meticulously jotting everything down letter by letter and hand-delivering it? How unfortunate you have to read material that people who dedicated their lives to the betterment of the human condition would have given their lives for not half a century ago. I do hope you'll survive.
I don't know. I like your profile, it makes me smile. And what posts of yours I have seen before this one. Again, I separate the art from the artist. I'm on the warpath against an idea, nothing else. Rather attitudes or states of mind that are detrimental to how ideas were formed in the first place. For your and everyone else's benefit I assure you.
I really like this idea of setting up a pseudo-dialectic between a poor way of doing something and a better way of doing something. You're right, we have a lot of positive choices in our lives and things really could be a lot worse for a lot of people. And it is about a lot of little things, not just one big yes or no. Like life. :clap:
Oh shit, you guys are right! Why didnt I just ponder the wonders of modern technology to get me through! I see the errors of my ways, and now I rather do everything!! Its all changed! Its a whiole new world.
Isn't the power of choice a wonderful thing? :up:
Wish that was a true situation before having choices Id rather not deal with in the first place.
Also, comparing your bad choices with people worse off in some technogical way doesnt make the situation better. Relatively speaking, people have to deal with the situations as presented in contingent historical time, space, and circumstances. The problem is dealing ith in the first place. Always dealing with something. Techniques like shaming one for not liking the situation are tawdry post facto bandaids you give to children.
Rather, it is true that much of life is has neutral or negative experiences that can quite easily and if possible, willingly be replaced by sleep (if it was easy to sleep on a whim). Actually, what I find interesting is WYRBS morality transcends all cultural contexts. There is no fact about a culture that leads to ought rather be doing anything. Walmarts and boutique stores dont make my preference any different.
Like it or not...each person here has got "life."
What are your thoughts on simply ending it?
Should suicide be made more accessible and easy?
I think it should be. Interested in what you think.
I think it is an okay option if thought out all the way through. I am not against it. But as Cioran says, "It is not worth the bother to kill yourself because you always kill yourself too late". That's kind of my thoughts on it. By the time you go ahead with it, the things that led to it have already happened. Also Schopenhauer:
"Suicide may also be regarded as an experiment--a question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to an answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man's existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer".
Thus the relief one feels is never satisfied in the very outcome itself, making a sort of paradox. Rather, suicide is often the longing to never be. But we can never, never be to begin with. Thus, poor Silenus was right, but can never be really acted upon
'you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature's excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can
My overall idea about what to do about the whole "life" thing is form Communities of Consolation. In this community, one can feel free to gripe all they want, be comforted by others and comfort others. Live life knowing of the situation of our own insatiable dissatisfaction, of our own plight into necessary and contingent suffering. Be aware that we are always in a situation of dealing with this or that (it doesn't matter the cultural, historical, or contingent context, this is ALWAYS a factor).
Here is a question for you Frank. What happened if everyone thought like a Philosophical Pessimist? How would that change how the world operates? Or would it? Would the reality of the situation still be that people would simply slog on in their dealings with and move forward the same the same the same as it ever was.
Really, really tough question for me, because I almost NEVER think like a pessimist. I consider myself one of the luckiest people ever...things just seem to break my way. I've had some tough moments in my 84 years (cancer and a minor stroke)...but I always came up with a rose in my mouth. I live at a poverty level...but I am content with what I have and desire almost nothing more.
The covid thing has got me thinking about suicide, though. The thought of dying by drowning in one's own fluids over weeks of intensive care...bereft of family and friends to ease the exit...is so horrible to contemplate, I am sure if it were happening to me, I would be hoping for a quicker, less painful ending. Assisted suicide would be one way for that to happen.
Just a thought problem. I doubt anyone right now will be given that "quicker, less painful" option.
Thanks for all the other thoughts, Schopenhauer. I'll consider them more as I follow the thread.
Somehow I have to question such "would"-arguments. The simple question is why you wouldn't just do it. A strong thesis might be that such "would rather" statements are more like a kind of self-expression than to take factually.
I sleep little. Yet I would feel tempted to say that I do not value the wake time in itself. I might imagine that sleeping instead would be okay. But sleeping as much as I theoretically could would result in a near "work-sleep-work" cycle. And that kind of existence would seem horrible. So I have to really prefer being wake. My practice speaks against my own "judgement": Why would I feel the need to compensate for the work-time by doing other things (awake) if switching the "superfluous" wake time for sleep would really be ok?
So what do you mean with your question? The real "implicit" judgement or the imagination?
Edit: In reflection only working and sleeping is not that bad at all....
So there will potentially be something it is like to be after one has taken the suicidal leap.
There is nothing it is like to be asleep. There is only what it is like to be around sleep (ex. drowsie awareness, warm under the covers, thinking about preferences in a bed, feeling rested).
I think these miss the point of the OP. If you rather not be doing something, and in fact rather simply not even be conscious than doing that activity, and this adds up to most of the day, that is indicating a strong preference for not existing for much of the day. Now aggregate this...
There is something called sleep. It exists. "It like to be asleep" would be unconsciousness. Do you have to be aware for "something to be like"? Maybe, but that's not the topic at hand really.
Quoting Heiko
The imagination. Clearly just sleeping would result in eventual death if enacted. The point is rather, how much of normal waking days would you not mind replacing with sleep instead of having to do them? If it is neutral or negative, and you switched those out, how much of the day would be that?
Isn't it ironic that one of the things you would want to replace with trying to sleep is sleep? So that certainly falls under the many things where you would rather replace X activity with sleep itself.
I would say then it is clearly neutral towards sleeping most of the time. There are very few things I am eagerly looking forward to. I just wanted to point out, that the result of really doing so however would be something I would not be okay with.
I do not see if this really effects your argument yet, though. But asking for every moment separately "Sleep instead?" and asking for the sum seems to lead to different results. This is strange.
Can you clarify?
Dunno what the result would be if there weren't necessities like work and stuff that would require me to be awake.
I know, this is clearly not what you were asking for.
I think this sets out a false dichotomy. I'd certainly rather be sleeping than working, but I'd also rather be partying or watching TV or playing a game than sleeping.
Sure, but sleeping is sort of a neutral state..one where you are not conscious. Its a stand in for "not existing". Would you rather not exist much of the day or exist and bear through the activity? Its purposely meant to make you think about the motions of most everyday tasks and their worth.
Most people will already agree that a lot of the things we do we only do because we have to, and that we'd prefer to do anything else instead (e.g. sleeping) were that an option, so I'm not really sure the overall purpose of your argument.
I think you stated it.
Let me clarify.. If sleeping (being not awake) is preferable to most activities in waking life.. Of course no one is disputing that there are some things one rather do than sleep. But the percentage might be more interesting than one would first suspect.
This is quite ambiguous. Although a large percentage of my day is spent doing things I'd rather be sleeping than doing (e.g. working), in terms of all the things I could be doing (e.g. parting, watching TV, playing games, etc.), sleeping certainly isn't preferable to the majority.
If all you want to say is that a life of mostly sleeping is more desirable than a life of mostly working, then fine. But don't go further than that, because a life of mostly partying, watching TV, and playing games is more desirable than a life of mostly sleeping.
And of course, even if a life of mostly sleeping is better than a life of mostly working, I'd also say that a life of mostly working is better than a life of always sleeping.
Yet you don't do them.. And hence in my OP:
I just think that the de facto options of a normal human life may actually skew towards preferable to be sleeping.
Quoting Michael
Ok, so this amounts to a world that doesn't exist for many realistically.
Quoting Michael
You say the exact opposite thing in the second part then you did the first part. You prefer sleeping to work, you prefer work to sleeping. Which is it?
Edit: Oh I see you said "always" sleeping versus mostly. So, you those minority of moments you prefer more than sleep make it worth it. Why?
Edit 2: Actually, I don't care why. This is an argument for birth not suicide. If you knew that your life would be mostly "rather be sleeping" would you want that? Oh Nietzsche you asshole. Eternal return.. worst idea ever.
Edit 3: Actually, the point is that by the mere fact that you "rather be sleeping" much of the time, this speaks louder than your stated preferences.
Because the concept of eternal unconsciousness terrifies me.
Yes, see Edit 2 and 3.
If I was conscious before birth (somehow) and had to choose to either be born or to stop being conscious then I'd choose to be born, because the concept of eternal unconsciousness terrifies me.
I don't know what you mean by this. That work sucks? I know.
Yet wanting to sleep much of the time is is not being conscious either. And this whole "terrifies" thing is why I made edit 3 cause I knew you were going to go with a suicide slant with it soo..
Quoting Michael
Or whatever else you don't want to do, and thus.. never existing might have been preferable to t[s]he waking hours you enjoy[/s] existing more generally.
Doesn't even make sense. Who would be around to do the preferring? Something can't be preferable without a person to prefer it. Preferring something is a state of a concious human mind.
Hence edit 3.
Edit 3 still contains the concept of preference. It's incoherent without a preferer.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You can retrospectively and meaningfully talk about preference in its relation to never existing. You just can't actually never exist.
No, a few hours of consciousness is preferable to none.
I think you mean a few waking hours doing only things you'd rather be doing than sleeping. Sure, but you can't have that.
I don't see how. How can anyone meaningfully say they would prefer not to have existed when not existing negates any ability to experience a state of preference?
We don't talk this way about any other contingent states. We don't say, for example, that a painting would be more/less vibrant had it never been painted. The vibrancy is a property of the painting and so had it never been painted there'd be not entity to possess this property.
No, this is the hypothetical situation where I replace the things I don't like doing (e.g. working) with sleeping. There are still plenty of things in my life that I prefer doing to sleeping. And the few hours doing them is preferable to never having been born.
Cool
We talk about situations which never happening being better, no? A state of affairs where one does not exist where X, Y, Z does not happen (rather be sleeping). A state of affairs where one does exist X, Y, Z does happen. It is just "good" that the negative did not happen. I don't even have to exist for this better situation to be true. If negative could have happened, but it did not, that is good.
You can retrospectively understanding that a better state of affairs could have taken place.
Yes. Better for the people who experience the world absent of the negative situation, not just 'better' in general. There's no general sense of 'better'. Something's being 'good' is belief within a human mind. Without human minds the concept has no meaning.
Actually I think it can be both.
Even if there was no person to know they were not around to be the beneficiary of the good, it is good. But yes, good is only recognized when there is someone around who can recognize it.
And.. if a tree falls in the woods..
As with your other posts, it is nothing but your odd ontological commitments (plus a general dissatisfaction with life) which lead to anti-natalism, yet you seem perpetually surprised that those of us with less Platonic dogmas don't reach the same conclusions.
This was not meant to be anything too rigorous. It was just more like...
"Wow, if I think about it, a lot of the day I'd rather not be conscious than go through this". If this were aggregated. they would only be awake for a much smaller amount of time for the non-sleep activities. That was it really. Then it leads to whether it's worth it for those small amounts of experience.
The reason it is not rigorous is its not a priori (I guess you might call more "Platonic"). It inevitably leads to people saying "Gee Whiz, schopenhauer1, I prefer almost ALL the time being awake through all the neutral and negative things!" or "I almost never have negative or neutral experiences!This is what @Michael did. I just don't feel like psychologizing over their own preferences, biases, what they state vs. what is actually the case, so I said "Cool" to him and moved on.
However, I suspect the percentage of preferred awake time might be lower than people think with a bit of reflecting. I just don't want to go down that rabbit hole of psychologizing and biases like Pollyannaism though, so I'll let people say "No way, schopenhauer1, you are wrong bout me and us other humans! Don't speculate about me Mister!" etc etc
But I think there are indeed a lot of de facto things about living that people would rather not be conscious for and in fact, in retrospect, would have perfectly been fine replacing that activity with sleeping.
Yes. There is no 1st person experience of death or sleep presumably. There are kinds of awareness around or preceding (in case of death) those events.
Time does not pass for an unconscious or dead being subjectively.
In the case of sleep or death then inevitably there is nothing (no 1st person or something it is like) until there is awareness.
I've often thought it would preferable to not exist but one can't really be certain of what that entails. But maybe awareness is inevitable because neither death or sleep is an experience.
Imagine you were constantly in a deep sleep and now had to decide which moments of “your” day/month/year/decade you specifically wanted* to be woken up and remain awake for whatever time before you would sleep again.
I might be reading something interesting, like this thread that stimulates my curiosity and temporarily staves off most of the boredom, but still – I wouldn’t want to be woken up just so I read this and then go back to sleep immediately.
Of course everything that’s even less interesting, or is neutral, or horrible wouldn’t even be in the picture in the first place.
If you could chose what to experience in life, it probably would only consist of a few minutes, maybe hours, or, at most, -days- for most people.
But no, choice and avoidance of suffering is the exact opposite of how life works, you are forced to endure every bit of difference between “your” (imposed) target state and “your” (imposed) actual reality.
The difference between those two changes and it’s sometimes more horrible than at other times, and they even pretty much never align, and if they would or come close, it’s only very temporarily, and you are very soon pained again.
*where does that “want” even come from? It’s another type of constant suffering inherent in being alive.
Yep agreed. It's amazing how much of the day could disappear, and it really wouldn't matter, or would be in fact, a relief. It's like grinding gears, that is somehow also like being on autopilot, because it's just things to maintain some sort of work related to (inevitably) surviving in a complex society, or its related to comfort, also in the context of a complex society.
Quoting An0n
Exactly! Very on point. See my thread on The animal that can resent every moment. I liked the way you stated it: "Forced to endure every bit of difference...". Endure is a key word here.
Quoting An0n
Yes, exactly! We know that we are unaligned from our (imposed) target state as we endure it. We are not only experiencing the negative state, but know we are. It is the added fly in the ointment, if you will. I call this kind of inherent, constant suffering and "want" necessary suffering, as it is built into being alive, as you say. Please share any more thoughts on the matter.
I think suffering is self-explanatory in the sense that it is what one simply doesn’t want to experience, so everyone suffering must know that he doesn’t want it, and will therefore avoid it whenever possible. I think it is impossible to suffer and at the same time not know that one doesn’t want to suffer.
Though regarding the general awareness of the circumstances of the suffering it likely makes it even a dimension deeper and more horrible.
This seems like a major difference between humans and wild animals living out their instincts*.
And this circumstantial awareness may be one of the reasons why -at least some- humans were able to cut their losses (or wished they were able to).
But thinking about it, if there are actual cases of animals euthanizing themselves in a way that really should go against their instincts – like jumping of a huge cliff, maybe even while struggling doing it, this could be a very strong indicator that at least some of them know their horrible situation as well.
Maybe all those stranded whales weren’t all that “disoriented” after all.
And who knows, some of those toddlers (as in humans temporarily on the mental level of animals) drinking bleach may had a specific goal doing this..
*though I’m not sure about animals in those “concentrated-animal-feeding-operation”s, as they aren't able to live out their instincts at all, they may know very well that their situation is catastrophic.
Speaking of sharing, one of the most insightful posts I found over the years on the nature suffering is from here, namely this post.
The implications of what dukkha wrote are absolutely horrific, and a rock solid case for antinatalism (yet another one – as you know). Though there is still much to add** and I may write soon a thread on it and will be curious what you think about it.
**f.e. how our perception of time makes matters a lot worse, as it decelerates time down to slow-motion while we have to endure suffering - and as if that weren't bad enough already, at the very same time it accelerates it while we experience pleasurable moments, so that it basically acts a fast-forward to suffering.
Speaking of ‘being on autopilot’, this is another indicator of how our mere presence is miserable, because how much of our doing results in dissociating from ‘mere existing’.
I used to meditate for an hour (years ago) and it’s not all that much if you think about it, but I always had to force me to do it, and if ‘just sitting doing nothing’ is so hard and so uncomfortable (and it is!), what exactly does that tell us about our existential baseline?
Though to be fair, it might be because we are so addicted to stimulation through technology (including books), that ‘just sitting doing nothing’ immediately starts a (drug-like) withdrawal.
Theoretically it could be possible to overcome this stimulation-addiction, so that mere presence doesn’t pain you so heavily anymore, but I’m not sure if it is actually possible.
But, even if it were, that we are so very prone to getting immensely addicted to external stimulation in the first place is telling in itself, and stems from suffering-avoidance for sure.
This is another important point, I’m not sure if suffering is actually necessary for consciousness, I doubt it is, and it certainly isn’t to the degree that we have to go through.
If consciousness is forced external input onto some “I”, it is inherently unfree, but could theoretically still at least be neutral. So that makes me assume a sadistic creator even more, and I really, really hope I'm wrong with that.
(But ultimately, I found it very hard to go even near the bottom of the matter. How does suffering even work fundamentally, and how is the “I” even created, presumably out of nothing? It looks like logic doesn’t even apply there.)
I can agree with this definition. Other animals may have pain/negative state in the moment, or maybe even unknowing trauma from past events, but I would not necessarily call it suffering from their point of view. Thus a distinction can be made between mere harm and suffering, which is a secondary reflection on the primary harm taking place. One has to be a linguistic animal it seems, to suffer vs. only be harmed/feel negative. Thus, the point of this thread.
Quoting Zn0n
That is an excellent quote, and I remember it! A great example of a sort of Schopenhaurean (Eastern?) understanding of the negative view of pleasure. We are striving away from negative states rather than necessarily being driven by positive ones. The (what first seems to be) apparent "intrinsic goods" of positive states might be just as dukkha describes- a sort of cessation/distraction from the suffering. And it is suspect, as he also noted in that post, that we would never want pleasures to last more than their temporary experience of them (e.g. orgasm, the constant taste of something we liked in the moment).
Quoting Zn0n
Please do!
Quoting Zn0n
Yes, excellent observation. Another aspect of the human animals' unique situation of suffering- not only in our increased perception of duration of suffering, but our decreased sense of pleasureable/positive moments.
Quoting Zn0n
Yep, great point. "Always becoming, but never being". If life itself was fully positive (and not negative as it actually is), being itself, would be enough. That is not life. That is not our nature.
Quoting Zn0n
I tend not to think so. It is part of the human condition. I'm also skeptical about the "Noble Savage" trope that if we only lived "in nature" this would cure us. I think that is just lack of actual contact with hunter-gatherers in their own context. However, there may be a case to be made for your earlier understanding of time perception. Time is not commodified into exactness as it has become, so may be less of an issue. One may say that their baseline boredom requires less, technology, but certainly restlessness is part of their daily life as well. You take away their version of entertainment, that surely would also affect them negatively as anyone from a "modern" society.
Quoting Zn0n
Yes, very true. It is a feature, not a bug.
Quoting Zn0n
Suffering, if defined by being always at a deprived state, is indeed necessary, not necessarily to consciousness, but to conscious life, and certainly the human version of it. You gave great examples of it.
Overall, much agreement obviously.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Great point, they certainly have their own forms of entertainment, I haven't seen it from that angle.
Quoting MSC
Any type of unprovoked ad-hominem is an admission of defeat, so good luck next time!
This comment has solidified my impression that you have nothing other than lame insults and weak strawman-generalizations and are therefore demonstrably completely argumentatively helpless.
Good luck next time, you’ll need it.
Triggered.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't think your WYRBS argument works for the simple reason that sleep is known to be a temporary state of unconsciousness. People prefer to sleep rather than doing something dull and boring only because they know they'll get up from it.
The correct formulation of an antinatalist question is: Would You Rather be Dead? I don't think there'll be many takers to this generous offer.
shill
So if someone were at the end of their life, and had to choose between 1) getting their foot cut off and dying and 2) sleeping during this time instead and then dying, people wouldn't want to avoid the suffering, even if they don't wake up from it?
Quoting TheMadFool
Well as far as I'm aware there are countless sucessful suicides every few seconds.
What isn't even factored in in these numbers is that most attempts are unsucessful (something like 90% iirc) and there is practically no availability to speak of for peaceful methods, plus constant indoctrination how life is always great and if you disagree for whatever reason you are "mentally ill".
So there is in fact an enormous number of people who really, really want to be dead already.
@schopenhauer1
No, it's an admission of incredulity at how transparent you are.
Creating another account to narcissistically agree with yourself is the real admission of defeat. Not that you'll ever believe that because you're already buying into the lies you are telling yourself.
For the record, there isn't good evidence that Zn0n and Schop the same user.
Quoting fdrake
Thanks for pointing it out. Would be great if multiple threads wouldn't be deliberately derailed with nonsense like this.
The only similarities between me and him is our position on birth/life and apparently being a target for nasty ad hominems.
First thing to be clear about is that people don't want to, everyone, without exception, loathes, suffering. A certainty there's no point arguing about. The OP wants to make a case for antinatalism on the basis of how people prefer to sleep rather than be awak engaging in dull and boring activities. and the parallel being drawn is crystal clear - sleep is nonexistence and being awake is existence. If one prefers to sleep then, this argument concludes, one must prefer death.
So far so good.
The scenario you describe puts us in the position of having to make a choice: Either have your foot cut off and meet your end OR sleep and meet your maker. I presume what you really want to offer as choices are: be awake and suffer OR sleep and don't suffer. It's quite obvious that the latter is a preferable alternative but, the catch is, for that choice to be always the best, to be awake must always involve suffering, not just suffering but intolerable suffering.
Is this an accurate description of reality?
Is our every waking moment a living hell? This may not be clear to you or maybe it is, who knows? I think it'll become clearer if I copycat your technique by offering you choices of my own and mind you, there's nothing unrealistic about them.
Here are my choices: 1)awake and having the time of your life OR 2) asleep and dead to the world? My scenario, if it does anything, should blow the lid of clear off the antinatalist agenda. The choices available to us aren't limited to live and suffer or die and not. Antinatalists forget that we can live and be happy and if this wasn't true in the past and even if it isn't true in the present, the future is unpredictable - tables may turn, unexpected things may happen.
Quoting Zn0n
You're correct of course and I won't, can't, deny this truth but don't forget how many don't take their own lives.
@Zn0n @MSC
For the record, no Zn0n and I are not the same person. I don't know who he/she is, but it's nice to have company for once that understands the arguments. Welcome to the forums Zn0n!
Would you agree or disagree with these two statements?
Some Antinatalists have sincerely held beliefs and reasonable arguments to explain those beliefs as well as real moral concerns about the suffering of our species.
Some are insincere and only want to watch the world burn for their own pleasure.
You do see why I was a little suspicious at first though right? The timing of ZnOns account creation and direct interaction with your and only your posts was strange, even if we both agree now that those things are merely coincidental.
Well thank you, I'm glad that a newbie has accepted me as me and not some other in a forum I have contributed 4.3 thousand comments to :razz: . It just so happens you came in at the rare time where another poster is posting similar antinatalist views to mine, and is very articulate about it. I hope they stay. I've seen posters in the past who had some really good insights but then only contributed briefly and didn't stay. But anyways, I'm glad you are willing to be more charitable.
Quoting MSC
Yes, I see how you came in when there was a new poster that happened to have the same views as mine. What do you want me to say. I'm happy to see some people who have similar views. Many posters here have people fawn over each other's views, and reiterate it, strengthen them, get the slight boost from having someone agree and elucidate more on your own views. I usually don't get much of that, so it's a nice change.
Quoting MSC
I'm not so sure about this. I think most antinatalists are quite sincere. I think there can be a distinction made between antinatalists who are more passive (probably my views) vs. ones who get on board with things like "the benevolent world exploder" argument.
[quote=Wikipedia]In the 1958 article where R. N. Smart introduced the term ‘negative utilitarianism’ he argued against it, stating that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race, "a benevolent world-exploder," would have a duty to do so.[25] This is the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism,[7] and it is directed against sufficiently strong versions of negative utilitarianism.[26] Many authors have endorsed this argument,[27] and some have presented counterarguments against it.[/quote]
That would be just as bad as positive utilitarian arguments that suggest that if it is for "the greater good" then creating pain for an individual, when this does not need to happen for the individual, is acceptable. So those brands, I would not identify with that only based on negative utilitarianism. Though my views are based on not creating unnecessary harm/suffering, it always recognizes the locus of ethics at the level of individual. This is ethics at the margins, not on a whole. Potential parents that do not procreate, prevent that future individual from suffering. That is the level I am talking about, not whole populations as that quickly turns into not recognizing the individual, and using them as a means to an ends, which is bad for any cause.
You said most, not all. I do agree with the most statement, however I'm curious as to which Antinatalists you think don't belong to this majority of antinatalists that you find to be sincere? What could someone identifying themselves as antinatalist, do or say that could make you disagree with that particular individuals take on the matter? I only ask because there have been plenty of times where I have face palmed because someone has been poorly arguing for a claim I'd normally agree with. Kind of like how people who believe in god, don't always agree with another individuals argument for the existence of god. For example I remember watching a Joe Rogan Podcast with a philosopher who was poorly arguing for my beliefs in philosophy of mind. I just wanted him to stop talking the whole time, even though we agreed with the same claim.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Newbie to the forum, not philosophy or these types of debates. Quantity of writing doesn't factor into your status to me. I'm sure there have been plenty of individuals here whom have contributed a lot of comments with no real qualitative substance. Not saying this is you but I've yet to read all 4k of your comments haha.
What I said here I guess:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting MSC
No, I wasn't saying "bow to me for my many posts", but that it was rather brazen of you to just join the forum, and then accuse a member who has been here for many years that they are doing nefarious, sock-puppet activities on the forum.
I’m not sure if that’s the intended message or parallel, but since death is simply the end of life, and Antinatalists are against birth – the start of life, they are of course against its forced end as well – death.
I think more accurate would be to characterize Antinatalists as in favour of absence of imposed existence (short nonexistence), not because nonexistence is inherently good, but because suffering is inherently bad, and the only avoidance of all kinds of sufferings is not to be forced to exist.
At the same time nothing is lost because the craving for what we refer to as "good experience" is suffering too.
And I see the starting post is as a way to start getting aware of how much of life really is bad or neutral and how few moments are something we actually would consciously chose to experience.
I don’t think one needs or should force an analogy of sleep=nonexistence and being awake=existence.
Quoting TheMadFool
The post was to present a scenario where one wouldn't wake up from sleep again but still avoid suffering, even though you claimed nobody would do that.
Quoting TheMadFool
The everyday experience of most people isn't something to be excited about, but it probably isn't something to immensely fear either. But that doesn't mean that most people won't or aren't suffering severely. Immense suffering doesn't need to be your baseline to be bad, every single instance of it is one too much.
Also the degree of how much you actually suffer varies from human to human and is dependent on your circumstances and age (and a lot more of course). I think a lot of over 80-year-olds aren't particularly excited about their future experiences.
And every infant is in pretty much in constant agony as far as I'm aware, that's all they ever communicate.
But I honestly think you are very privileged if you seriously believe that immense suffering is something abstract as it can literally happen at any moment. You may have been spared until now but this is not too common.
For many it is very real, so real in fact that they overcome the strongest instinct humans have and go against their own survival instinct and manage to somehow kill themselves, while having many obstacles in their way (external and internal ones) while still fearing death, pain and uncertainity as much as everyone else, or even more so.
But even more fundamentally, this post by @dukkha makes an excellent point of how pleasure is just the avoidance of suffering, meaning life isn’t the carrot and the stick, but doesn’t even have a carrot, it’s in fact only beating with the stick (suffering) and temporary absence of the stick (pleasure).
Quoting TheMadFool
What does that euphemism actually mean - “having the time of your life”?
That you suffer through craving something and get a release for that suffering, until you are bored again? Like being pained and obsessed by a craving to visit some special place and then finally after many months you were actually able to visit that place and get your problem that life imposed onto you temporarily fulfilled (=release of suffering), until the next craving will be forced upon you?
You can only "enjoy" something if you suffer through a craving for it, f.e. the more you crave food, the "better" it will taste. And without any craving whatsoever the same food won't taste good at all.
The "pleasure" you may(!) get is always a release of your own suffering, and if the suffering is particularly great, you may(!) get a big release, thinking you profited, when in reality, you went from -5 to -0.5 again.
The same applies to thirst and drinking, constipation and going to the toilet, the urge for sex and an orgasm etc. Dukkhas' post I linked explains it really well.
Quoting TheMadFool
Something tells me this is meant to be an obvious “that would be totally bad”-option, but I really can’t see it. Wherein lies the harm in being unconscious?
There is no harm whatsoever if you aren’t conscious/suffering, you don’t miss out anything if you aren’t pained by a craving for what you then think you will miss out on.
Quoting TheMadFool
The antinatalist “agenda” (disphemism) is to end suffering. It is the most important thing you could possibly solve.
Quoting TheMadFool
We don’t have any choice, since we have to exist and were forced into this life. You are exactly one moment of immense suffering away from being actively suicidal, because being suicidal isn’t a choice either. It’s just another suffering-avoidance mechanism.
Quoting TheMadFool
No you can’t live and be happy. You can suffer (and be a bit unaware of its exact extent) and then get a temporary release off that suffering and call it "happiness", but that’s it.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes concentration camps may return rather sooner than later, another argument for Antinatalism.
You don't need the bandaid (paradise) if you aren't stabbing people in the first place (dragging them into life).
Quoting TheMadFool
None of those who don’t take their life would have missed out anything if they didn’t come to be, so their existence is completely irrelevant to that equation, but what is actually important is that uncountable numbers of real victims would have been spared immense suffering/torture if they wouldn’t have been dragged into life.
Also (temporarily) happy people don’t make up for torture victims. That was what I’m asking in my previous post. How many torture victims do you think are justified for someone elses’ temporary happiness?
(And how can you even be happy in such a brutal world in the first place, but that's another topic.)
Every single of those victims of life is one too much, and it’s all for absolutely nothing, because the ones that don’t want to kill themselves (assuming they could, which is very unlikely btw) couldn’t have missed anything whatsoever.
If it gets you talking and taking me seriously, then I'll say it. It was a sincerely held concern and I would have done it whether you had been here for five years or five minutes. The accusation itself was investigative in nature. If you had started flaming and insulting me in a highly emotionally charged way where you were protesting too much then I may have had a point.
I wouldn't worry about that though. It is in the past now and I've already apologised. The IP addresses don't match and I didn't know enough about you to really say either way.
Again, coming in with guns blazin.. But it was also discounting the fact that two people can have the same views on something controversial, and not recognizing the individual nuances in people with similar views.
Yep, good way to phrase it.
Quoting Zn0n
Yep. Deprivation of good, does not matter unless there is someone that actually exists to be deprived. Only once a person exists, does being deprived of good experience become an issue, it is can be argued that it is thus doubly good to prevent that (inevitable) deprivation.
Quoting Zn0n
Yes! Thank you for recognizing that. Are people purposely taking the analogy literally as to make red herring side-tracks? Much of the day could be replaced with sleep is the point. If one looks at all the neutral or negative things that might easily and readily be replaced with sleep instead, one might find that there are only handful of any "fulfilling" things that are left throughout the day. Much of it is grinding gears or autopilot experience- all things where sleep would be easily more desired or at least if replaced by sleep, people would have no objections with.
Quoting Zn0n
:up:
Quoting Zn0n
Yep.
Quoting Zn0n
Yes, people confuse inter-worldly matters (e.g. being born) with intra-worldly matters (things people do once already born). Antinatalism deals with inter-worldly matters. These terms are from Julio Cabrera for reference.
Quoting Zn0n
Yep.
Don't forget happiness in your equation unless you want to end up dividing by zero, mathematically speaking.
Quoting Zn0n
Whatever scenario an antinatalist will invent, it always boils down to life is suffering and so, you know what. Old wine in a new bottle, mate.
Sorry, I couldn't read through your post in entirety but I'll offer you one argument that should settle the issue once and for all. I don't deny that there's suffering in life but, you also can't deny that there's happiness in life too. Now, you'll have to bring up the matter of asymmetry - specifically Benatar's asymmetry - suffering exceeds happiness and so, antinatalism is the way to go. At this point, we need to understand what suffering is, essentially its purpose. Notice that all forms of suffering are like canaries in coal mines - they serve to warn us of impending...wait for it...death. Cut your finger and it hurts; the cut is like an alarm going off warning of the possibility of infection, followed by septicemia, followed by...wait for it...death. The same logic applies to mental anguish - it's again an alarm set off by,...wait for it...impending death but this time in the psychological domain. In short suffering, whether physical or mental, are all unpleasant because they presage...wait for it...death. Antinatalists have misunderstood the meaning of pain - it's a harbinger of death and that's why we find it unpleasant and that's why to recommend nonexistence because of pain is like recommending weight gain (death) to a person who avoids high calorie diets (pain) because it makes him fat (death).
"Dividing by zero" is a major error in mathematics. You are trying to color my statement that comes down to empty void doesn't crave "happiness" (the release of suffering) as such an error, while you are the one actually doing it.
But apart from that, we can't have a debate if you just completely ignore all my refutations of your claims and then just repeat your already refuted claims. That's just trying to waste my time.
Quoting TheMadFool
Antinatalists don't have to "invent" scenarios, but delusional suffering-apologists have to invent impossible alleged future utopias where suffering doesn't exist anymore to try to "justify" torture in the past in the present and in the future as well.
But as ridiculously ironic as that is, it's beside the point, that life literally is suffering.
Life is having imposed a targeted state upon you and a reality state that differentiates from that target state.The bigger the difference between them, the more suffering.
That's all life is, was and unfortunately - will be, desperately trying to solve problems life created and imposed in the first place.
That people long ago already saw that doesn't make it any less true, but in fact more sad, that humans after all that time are still in utter denial for the most part.
Quoting TheMadFool
And that's the exact line where I stopped.
You "couldn't" read further my refutations of your claims but could write something more intended for me to invest time to debunk (that you then wont read as well I assume).
I acknowledged the existence of suffering in the world and also that, comparatively speaking, it's greater in severity than any happiness that can possibly experienced by any one of us. Please keep this in mind as it'll become important later on.
The best argument antinatalists have to offer is one that proceeds from the statement that suffering is far in excess of happiness and I've admitted that this is a fact.
At this point let's put suffering under the microscope. It's, all said and done, the cornerstone of the statement that there's more suffering than happiness in the world, the key premise in the best antinatalist argument.
Suffering comes in two varieties, physical pain and mental anguish (depression). Physical pain, as all antinatalists will agree, is an unavoidable part of living but why stop the inquiry into pain there? It's a convenient spot to close the investigation, convenient for antinatalists that is. I insist that we reopen this case and make further inquiries into suffering, physcial and mental.
First question to ask is this: What is the function of pain, what purpose does it serve?
Physiologists will be more than willing to inform antinatalists that pain is an unpleasant sensation which serves the purpose of letting a person know that the body has been injured and requires attention to prevent it snowballing out of control and leading to death. Also note how we we reflexively pull away when we touch something hot. The principle at work here is prevention is better than cure and a stitch in time saves nine. The bottom line is that our physical pain sensory apparatus is an alarm system that's designed to alert us to minor and major injuries that might lead to catastrophic failure (death) if not attended to.
Mental anguish too has the same function - it raises the alarm when there's a threat of, or actual, harm to our mental well-being with the specter of death looming ominously over the one who is so suffering.
All in all, suffering, whether physical pain or mental anguish, are simply warnings of impending death and that's exactly the reason why it's unpleasant and people avoid it.
If a person were a king then, suffering is a messenger who brings bad tidings, news of a coming disaster, death. The purpose of the messenger's bad news (suffering) is to provide an opportunity for the monarch to put in place measures to avoid the disaster, death. For the ruler to then decide to let the disaster, death, happen (antinatalism) because the messenger conveyed bad news (suffering) is to miss the point of the bad-news-delivering messenger's purpose (as a warning mechanism) entirely. Oddly, it reminds me of Jesus - the savior who was branded a rabble-rousing heretic by Jews and their overlords, the Romans.
Everybody is forced to acknowledge the existence of suffering, there is no choice in that, but to the contrary it’s against everyones’ choice by definition.
A bit on semantics:
Please be more specific what exactly you are speaking about when you talk about “happiness”, because the word strikes me as a bit fuzzy.
F.e. what part of being pained by hunger, appetite and boredom and then having eaten a big meal and being temporarily released of that pain of hunger, appetite and boredom is actually “happiness”? The few seconds of taste before you swallow? Or the being satiated after being hungry? All of it?
You could use “pleasure” instead as it covers more of what you are most likely referring to, and just using “happiness” weakens your own point, because suffering includes all types of badness, but "happiness" not all types of alleged “goodness”. Why it’s alleged “goodness” and not actual “goodness” did I describe in more depth in my response to you here.
Quoting TheMadFool
Hard disagreement here, this argument isn’t even in the top 10 by any stretch of imagination.
What you described is yet another reason while life is asymmetric and stacked against you from the very start, but there are even way better arguments. I provided two at the end of this post, please respond to them.
Quoting TheMadFool
What your doing here is claiming inherent bad (suffering) were actually good, because part of that bad happens to -sometimes- serve a function inside the bad system of life.
But Antinatalists question the alleged necessity of the bad system of life itself, and point out that it’s bad because you can’t possibly improve -absence of suffering-, by forcing it into suffering.
You are basically committing an ought-is-fallacy here among others.
To apply this line of thinking:
Brutal group-rape is bad but serves a function, namely the release of the urge to brutally rape of the multiple rapists. (Also there is only one victim.) So brutal-group-rape is now a good thing.
I hope you see now how blatantly evil this line of thinking is.
I find this to be a good test, if your line of reason could be used to allegedly “justify” the torture of innocents it needs to be discarded immediately.
Now how about you responding to these two arguments:
You're making a mistake here. The pleasure of raping is not the same as the pain of being raped. You should be, like a good antinatalist, focusing on the suffering of the rape victim, no? The suffering experienced by the victim being raped is good because it informs the victim that something horrible is happening. Without this suffering, n one would know if they're being raped, no? Is this the preferable situation, to not know you're being raped?
I refer you now to the argument I made previously about what the function of pain/suffering is. The more fallacious than twisted, but both, logic of antinatalists would have us all be raped because being raped is painful. We suffer in life ergo, we should all prefer not to live proclaims antinatalists but they fail to see that we suffer precisely because we don't want not to exist. By the same token then antinatalists should be moving mountains to ensure that everyone gets raped.
An antinatalist on life:
We suffer in existence. Ergo, we shouldn't want to exist.
BUT...we suffer in existence precisely because we don't want to not exist. Suffering is unequivocal proof that we don't want to not exist. That means the antinatalist argument is a contradiction viz. We don't want to not exist (that's why we suffer). Ergo, we should not exist.. Said differently, we should do exactly that which we don't want to do This last statement is important for what follows.
By the same logic,
We suffer in being raped. Ergo, the antinatalist should say, we should all get raped. After all, we should do exactly that which we don't want to do
In the example you gave there wasn't even any pleasure, only pain forced upon someone, so that means it would make the case where I applied your reasoning upon even "stronger".
You haven't refuted anything, and are now talking some stuff reminding me of a strawman-smokemirror about other alleged Antinatalists. You are not responding to my arguments whatsoever, since I did point that out more than once this has to be considered arguing in bad faith at this point.
As a last attempt to have an actual debate that you are refusing so far (I wonder why), please respond to my arguments, not some strawman-Antinatalist, and at least these two points I made, everything else isn't even close to a debate but an intentional waste of time:
Yes, I agree but that doesn't yet make me an antinatalist because to agree here doesn't necessarily mean we immediately recommend nonexistence as the solution. There are other ways to go about dealing with this issue. We could work toward making the world a better place, a place where pain needn't be a part of our lives at all.
Quoting Zn0n
Can you provide a complete, accurate, description of our world without including happiness? No, right? For antinatlists to make their case they have to demonstrate, prove, that every waking moment of our existence is a living hell. That, as of yet, isn't the case. Sorry.
Quoting Zn0n
You're not factoring in the dynamic nature of the world - things change, we will, and in this potential for change there's the possibility, no matter how small, that the future won't be simply a perpetuation of the dismal conditions, antinatalists are so eager to point out, that characterize our past and future.
Also, what of the nature of pain I took a lot of effort explaining to you? I'll reiterate it below for your consideration:
Antinatalist: There is suffering in existence. Ergo, the antinatlist says, we shouldn't exist.
Me: We don't want to suffer because we don't want not to exist. So, to say that we shouldn't exist doesn't make sense for the reason that suffering implies that we don't want not to exist. Antinatalism is a contradiction: We don't want not to exist (that's the reason we suffer). We shouldn't exist
Using people to get to this far off better place, which may never actually be anyways, is not moral. Yet not procreating a new person does harm to no one. So this would not be a viable alternative, if you indeed didn't want to do things like use people or not cause unnecessary harm (for whatever reasons, even if it comes from the best of intentions).
Quoting TheMadFool
So you aren't looking at @Zn0n's point. That is that even happiness is a sort of deficit, as the "not having happiness (or pleasure)" is itself a harm. Thus this whole need-cycle can be circumvented itself.
Quoting TheMadFool
But you admit: "no matter how small". See above about "using people" and their inevitable negative experiences for some far off better future.
Quoting TheMadFool
This whole scheme/strawman you set up here just doesn't fly. The "not wanting to die" itself is a fear, a negative experience. The evolutionary reason for physical pain doesn't make it any less of a negative experience. Creating that very fear, and the very pains that go along with our evolutionary machinery, itself does not have to be created in the first place. Fearing death is a non-issue here. It has nothing to do with not creating suffering in the first place. Not being born and not wanting to feel pain or fear of death are different things and you are (purposely?) equivocating it.
I'm tired of repeating myself so I won't. While there's the expression, "preaching to the choir", that suggests I do the opposite and argue with you, there's also the phrase, "a leopard can't change its spots". So, I'd like to take this opportunity to bow out of this discussion, not because I didn't benefit from it but because I have nothing more to offer you. Thanks and good luck.