Read on for a simple analogy that bypasses pretentious existential jargon, and shows how absurdity is about the clash between objective and subjective perspectives.
There's a tradeoff with our pets, of course. It's symbiosis, and each compromises to get the benefits of living with the other. We pick up the excrement because the animals aren't going to do it themselves, but we do it for our benefit so we don't have animal poop all over our public places. I suppose the question is whether domesticating animals or having pets in the first place is absurd. Is symbiosis absurd? It's humiliating, at least, to realize that each species is liable to evolve, as the genes submit to new environments by building fitter body types.
Varying degrees of harm and pleasure await us in the future. No opinions there. If we don't exist, we bypass the harm and aren't in need of pleasure. No opinions there either.
If we don't exist, we don't experience any good and are not left in a superior state due to the inexistence of harms. There could be some opinions here, but they are probably unconvincing.
I missed this comment on antinatalism until now. That's Benatar's bogus asymmetry argument. If we cease to exist there would be no pain, which would be good (mostly, since some pain is good), but there would also be no pleasure, which would be bad (mostly, since some pleasures might also be bad). There's no asymmetry that's going to justify antinatalism.
Obviously, if we cease to exist we'd have no need for pleasure, but we'd also have no pleasure from bypassing all that harm. So how would the lack of pain or harm be good if there's no one there to appreciate that lack? This is all just a wash.
"So how would the lack of pain or harm be good if there's no one there to appreciate that lack?" No one said that is was good. I purposely left opinion out of it, unlike Benatar.
But the antinatalist needs to make a value judgment to motivate antinatalism. If the lack of pain isn't good but is morally neutral, how is antinatalism better than sexual reproduction? The one is supposed to reduce the harm caused by the other. Pain is supposed to be bad and the lack of it good. But if there's no one there to experience the lack of pain, because antinatalism has killed off all life, there's no longer any good to be had. Antinatalism would have extinguished life to achieve only a morally neutral end.
The harm we experience in life is objective. How we feel about it, or whether we appreciate its absence is subjective. Euthanasia is offered in some places for people diagnosed with terminal illness. After they are euthanized they are no longer able to appreciate having bypassed the illness destroying their body. They avoided having their body further ravaged by disease.
Right, suicide can be motivated just by the desire to escape pain, not by the goodness of the absence of pain, which goodness disappears with the dead person (or species). The problem for antinatalists is that our "suffering" is mixed with pleasure and with more neutral routines. If the extinction of our species would be neutral rather than good (since no one would experience the benefit of our absence--unless we're talking about the benefit to animals or to "Mother" Earth), the need to escape the condition of life must be severe enough to be the sole motivation for our species' suicide. But it's more severe for some than for others.
I don't have strong feelings about euthanasia. We should have the right to do what we want with ourselves if we're not hurting others, and doctors likely go overboard in protecting life at all costs without regard for the quality of life. But I can see how the decision to kill yourself could be made when you're not in your right frame of mind. It's hard to say even what would be such a mind frame since that decision would be so drastic.
Anyway, antinatalists would still be opposed to having babies and carrying on our species. Even if euthanasia were legal and safe, most people wouldn't choose to kill themselves, which means they disagree fundamentally with antinatalists in viewing life as having overall positive value.
Humans shuffling around with their "pets" on a leash, picking up their feces is one of the many absurd things humans do.
ReplyDeleteThere's a tradeoff with our pets, of course. It's symbiosis, and each compromises to get the benefits of living with the other. We pick up the excrement because the animals aren't going to do it themselves, but we do it for our benefit so we don't have animal poop all over our public places. I suppose the question is whether domesticating animals or having pets in the first place is absurd. Is symbiosis absurd? It's humiliating, at least, to realize that each species is liable to evolve, as the genes submit to new environments by building fitter body types.
DeleteVarying degrees of harm and pleasure await us in the future. No opinions there. If we don't exist, we bypass the harm and aren't in need of pleasure. No opinions there either.
ReplyDeleteIf we don't exist, we don't experience any good and are not left in a superior state due to the inexistence of harms. There could be some opinions here, but they are probably unconvincing.
DeleteI missed this comment on antinatalism until now. That's Benatar's bogus asymmetry argument. If we cease to exist there would be no pain, which would be good (mostly, since some pain is good), but there would also be no pleasure, which would be bad (mostly, since some pleasures might also be bad). There's no asymmetry that's going to justify antinatalism.
DeleteObviously, if we cease to exist we'd have no need for pleasure, but we'd also have no pleasure from bypassing all that harm. So how would the lack of pain or harm be good if there's no one there to appreciate that lack? This is all just a wash.
"So how would the lack of pain or harm be good if there's no one there to appreciate that lack?" No one said that is was good. I purposely left opinion out of it, unlike Benatar.
DeleteBut the antinatalist needs to make a value judgment to motivate antinatalism. If the lack of pain isn't good but is morally neutral, how is antinatalism better than sexual reproduction? The one is supposed to reduce the harm caused by the other. Pain is supposed to be bad and the lack of it good. But if there's no one there to experience the lack of pain, because antinatalism has killed off all life, there's no longer any good to be had. Antinatalism would have extinguished life to achieve only a morally neutral end.
DeleteThe harm we experience in life is objective. How we feel about it, or whether we appreciate its absence is subjective. Euthanasia is offered in some places for people diagnosed with terminal illness. After they are euthanized they are no longer able to appreciate having bypassed the illness destroying their body. They avoided having their body further ravaged by disease.
DeleteRight, suicide can be motivated just by the desire to escape pain, not by the goodness of the absence of pain, which goodness disappears with the dead person (or species). The problem for antinatalists is that our "suffering" is mixed with pleasure and with more neutral routines. If the extinction of our species would be neutral rather than good (since no one would experience the benefit of our absence--unless we're talking about the benefit to animals or to "Mother" Earth), the need to escape the condition of life must be severe enough to be the sole motivation for our species' suicide. But it's more severe for some than for others.
DeleteHow do you feel about euthanasia? I think the arguments for antinatilism would be null and void if euthanasia was legal and safe.
DeleteI don't have strong feelings about euthanasia. We should have the right to do what we want with ourselves if we're not hurting others, and doctors likely go overboard in protecting life at all costs without regard for the quality of life. But I can see how the decision to kill yourself could be made when you're not in your right frame of mind. It's hard to say even what would be such a mind frame since that decision would be so drastic.
DeleteAnyway, antinatalists would still be opposed to having babies and carrying on our species. Even if euthanasia were legal and safe, most people wouldn't choose to kill themselves, which means they disagree fundamentally with antinatalists in viewing life as having overall positive value.
Suicide is the second leading cause of death for Gen Z.
DeleteMy body, my choice should extend to euthanasia.
ReplyDelete