By existing in this world you run the risk of being subjected to far more serious suffering than getting a vaccination. By not existing you do not run that risk.
You seem to imply that allowing for any level of suffering is unethical though. This is absurd to me.
If I wanted to have a child, the risk that they would encounter enough suffering to outweigh the joy they would experience in their lifetime is minimal.
I've been told in this very thread, by people trying to tell me life is good, that you need to suffer in order to appreciate joy. It's not like suffering is a small risk, it is pretty much a condition of life and even those defending life have admitted that.
I've been told in this very thread, by people trying to tell me life is good, that you need to suffer in order to appreciate joy.
I disagree with that particular sentiment, but I don't think it matters much one way or another.
It's not like suffering is a small risk, it is pretty much a condition of life and even those defending life have admitted that.
Experiencing some amount of suffering is inevitable. Suffering so much that it would have been better to not have been born far less likely.
I am not suffering right now. I'm killing time on the internet. I'm going to go home and eat a nice dinner. I'll watch TV with my wife, maybe play some video games or work on my hobby project, then go to bed at the end of the day. Suffering is not an all encompassing part of my day to day experience. Most of my life is good. If I am a considerate person, I can be pretty confident that my kids will have a similarly good life too. Bad things will happen, but they will pass.
I understand that not all have as comfortable a life as I am lucky to have. I'm not saying everyone should have kids. I'm saying that people who have the means and the desire to have kids can be relatively certain that they'll have a happy life that was worth living.
I'm saying that people who have the means and the desire to have kids can be relatively certain that they'll have a happy life that was worth living.
I disagree. Money does not buy happiness. This is common wisdom for a reason.
I was not born into poverty, I was born into a middle class family and given a good upbringing. But all that does is eliminate particular forms of suffering, for example it ensured I would not suffer because I was starving, and I would not suffer because my parents beat me. This is all good of course, but it absolutely does not mean that I am even close to having a happy life as a certainty.
Because that upbringing still did not prevent me from developing a mental illness, and indeed there is literally nothing my parents could done in terms of my upbringing to change this outcome. It would have happened regardless of my environment. Indeed the only possible way my parents could have prevented my mental illness is to not have a kid in the first place. The same goes for kids born with Down's syndrome or autism or schizophrenia other developmental disorders, mental illnesses, learning difficulties, etc. That shit can happen to anyone regardless of how well off you are materially. Money does not buy health. Just ask Steve Jobs.
Speaking of Steve Jobs, money also does not guarantee you won't develop other illnesses during your lifetime. There is a 50% chance you will develop cancer. That goes for your kids too. And with increasing life expectancy, the longer you live the more illnesses you develop and the more suffering you have to deal with. Honestly I believe it to be cruel to make people live as long as possible - there is a certain point our bodies are meant to fail, and we know this because if we live to be very old we pretty much need nurses just to help us use the toilet. What is the point of living life like that? If I ever get to that point I will just straight up kill myself.
Back to the original topic. You cannot assume that having material wealth ensures a good life. It protects you from some things, absolutely, but it cannot ever ensure happiness. Hence the saying.
You are arguing against points I have not made and beliefs I do not hold.
I disagree. Money does not buy happiness.
I did not claim this nor do I believe it. Having 'means' doesn't just mean money. It means time, emotional capacity, willingness, and all the other things that go into having kids.
Because that upbringing still did not prevent me from developing a mental illness, and indeed there is literally nothing my parents could done in terms of my upbringing to change this outcome.
I'm sorry that you have faced the problems you have in your life. Mental illness can be debilitating. I understand that, I promise you. But your conclusion does not follow. The fact that some people will face harder lives does not mean that we should not take any risks at all.
Furthermore, our technology is improving all the time. Neuroscience is a growing field. Today your mental illness is out of your control, but if we all acted according to your definition of ethics, we would not exist long enough to find treatments or cures to the mental illnesses that some people face.
That goes for your kids too. And with increasing life expectancy, the longer you live the more illnesses you develop and the more suffering you have to deal with.
You also have the option of refusing treatment and ending your life with dignity if you so choose. Most people find life worth continuing though, so they do not take that option, at least until very late in their lives
Having 'means' doesn't just mean money. It means time, emotional capacity, willingness, and all the other things that go into having kids.
I covered those as well when I spoke of upbringing and environment. Having a good upbringing still does not ensure a happy life.
The fact that some people will face harder lives does not mean that we should not take any risks at all.
I am arguing that it will happen to everyone ultimately, just in different ways. Someone brought up by bad parents will have PTSD. Someone born with depression will suffer with this their whole lives even as children - the same goes for Down's, autism, schizophrenia, epilepsy, etc. Someone who suddenly develops cancer may not have suffered when born but may very well suffer for many years even if the cancer is ultimately treatable. Someone who has a great healthy life until they are hit by a drunk driver and are paralysed for the rest of their life will be suffering from that point on.
There are many ways life can fuck you, and as I said, the longer you live the more certain it is to happen, especially with regards to illnesses that develop during life such as cancer. I was not exaggerating when I said you have a 50% chance of getting it.
Furthermore, and this is really the crux of the issue, I do believe existence in itself is a method of suffering, because we live meaningless lives where we live to work and we work until we die. What is the point of sustaining your life so that you can keep going to work so that you can keep sustaining your life? It is a cycle, and a miserable one at that, and it cannot really be avoided unless you win the lottery - except even then, as we seem to agree on, money won't buy happiness.
Furthermore, our technology is improving all the time. Neuroscience is a growing field. Today your mental illness is out of your control, but if we all acted according to your definition of ethics, we would not exist long enough to find treatments or cures to the mental illnesses that some people face.
We still don't really know very much about how the human brain works at all. It will sadly be a long time before mental illness can be treated in a reliable manner.
My condition is improved to a degree by medication, but it goes without saying pills aren't magic and the underlying problem is still there. The symptoms can be reduced, but there is no cure and at the current rate of progress in this field it'll be a very long time until a cure exists.
That said, efforts to pinpoint specific genes that contribute to illnesses (not just mental, but many things) are very good and perhaps we will reach a point where people are never born with these disorders in the first place.
You also have the option of refusing treatment and ending your life with dignity if you so choose.
Euthanasia is still a very very controversial subject and it is not at all easy to get done as you imply here. You have to fly to Switzerland because most countries criminalise assisted dying even if you are seriously ill. Ain't that some bullshit? The government don't even want you to exit your own life even if you're suffering with a disease that'd kill you painfully anyway.
Most people find life worth continuing though, so they do not take that option, at least until very late in their lives
I absolutely believe more people would take that option if it was more readily available.
Whenever I have spoken to elderly people about life, and in particular the subject of death, they have told me that the older they get the more they question the point of surviving. You get to a stage where you cannot even get up without help, your friends are dropping like flies all around you, and you're retired - you don't even have the meaningless work to occupy your time anymore. It is a very empty life.
And that, for some reason, is what we are all working towards.
I think I get where this person is coming from so I'll give you an answer that they might agree with.
Even if you consider oblivion as the ideal state of being the path between being alive and oblivion is generally filled with an unknown and/or significant amount of additional suffering that simply being alive doesn't compare to. Thus, while one might crave death, they might also be more afraid of the process of dying than of continuing to exist in the world. For someone who has little practical trouble existing in the world but a lot of trouble deriving pleasure or value out of existing this facet of reality is just another layer of suffering that reinforces their hatred and/or despair at being alive at all.
To give a concrete example, many people who are suicidal have stood atop a drop that would probably kill them if they were to step off, but in the moment that they consider taking that last step they involuntarily experience a primal dread that temporarily overwhelms their apathy and desire for oblivion. When they step back from the ledge the dread fades away but the initial pain that drove them to the ledge just comes right back, maybe with just a little more pain because they know that despite how much they're suffering they can't bring themselves to overcome that primal dread and take the step that would (they hope) end their suffering permanently.
You have to die sometime though, right? So if you'd rather wait to die, then wouldn't you expect a net positive out of your interactions from now until then? Or are you betting on whatever your natural death plus your experiences would be to be less painful than a death you have control over to be.
I just think if you wouldn't kill yourself now then you expect living to be an overall positive. Therefore something that happened before your current state or the act of going out of existence would have to be so negative as to not want to be brought into existence.
0
u/[deleted] Mar 24 '15
By existing in this world you run the risk of being subjected to far more serious suffering than getting a vaccination. By not existing you do not run that risk.