|
Guavanaut posted:From a Benatarian perspective, that's irrelevant. I've never heard of Benatar before, but the quote you pulled reads look some truly autistic utilitarianism. The counterargument would be the binary he sets up does not apply at all to existence. Pain and hardship are necessary parts of life, and are therefore good in many ways. According to the Vedas, pleasure exists only as the absence of suffering. This means that suffering is perhaps the ultimate good, the only positive quality of existence. Reproducing is not mandatory for all men. It is, however, an inescapable aspect of the universe's will to transcendence. How do utilitarians respond to the Vedas, or to Schopenhauer?
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As a utilitarian I respond with "that's daft". Ok.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That seems like nonsense to me, I don't strive for anything to increase my suffering (the only positive quality of existence). Of course. Masochism is a deviant behavior. Suffering isn't something most people actively seek out, but it's also something they can't avoid, and in fact makes them stronger and wiser (positive qualities in my opinion). I suppose my argument is that the existence of suffering in the world does not make reproduction unethical. All existence is suffering, a statement which I understand neutrally, because I do not necessarily see pain as an unequivocal "bad thing." If you respond to that fact by deciding not to reproduce, that is your choice and that is fine. All things are part of this narrative of suffering and transcendence, and they all respond as is their nature. Many people choose to continue their family line and to build something for future generations, but that is not necessarily an imperative choice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don' t think you have suffered enough/may have a rather delusional and magical view of the universe if you believe suffering to be constructive. Some people respond to suffering constructively, some don't. All people suffer, however. If you have children, they will suffer, but if they are strong, they will transcend that suffering. I realize that this is all very dramatic sounding. I myself prefer the quiet life and don't really see my life as a titanic struggle. Of course I've suffered, just like anybody else.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As you pointed out, however, it is your response which is constructive or not, not the suffering itself. This line of argument is going off topic so I will bow out after this post. My point is that suffering is an a priori fact of existence. All things that exist experience suffering and deterioration. I believe it is necessary to suffer to act properly simply because suffering is inherent to existing. I brought all this up because I disliked the utilitarian argument claiming that having children is immoral because you are subjecting a being to suffering without its consent. I dislike that argument because it is reductionist to say that suffering is bad and bad things should be avoided at all costs. I was simply curious if utilitarians could expand on their justification for such a simplistic view of pain and pleasure, given my objections (cribbed from Schopenhauer). That is probably a debate for a different thread, which I'm not going to start. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 19:45
|
|