Philosopher David Benatar

[DesertBob]

I'm not sure you are giving reality a fair shake here; or at least you are presenting only one, subjective personal version of it. I'm pretty sure most people are aware of the futility of life, but that doesn't mean we all agree that life is just something you trudge through. That would be a personal perspective that is highly subjective.

 

I'm beginning to think this philosophy is one that just attracts people with a certain perspective on life. It seems to fall short as a unifying theory of any sort.

Philosophy for the most part is baroque and obtuse, and goes nowhere. The closest thing to a satisfying unified theory for me probably lies in Jungian thought. Or, at least, I find that train of thought interesting, affirming of the mystery in life without reading more into it than is strictly warranted. And if one has the money and time, one can embark on structured Jungian therapy that has some actual practical object in mind, of working to make oneself more effective as a person, better integrated, etc. There are times when I've thought that hiring a professional friend might be a Good Thing. Then again, they will just want me to change yet again, so I dunno. It would be really nice to be acceptable to someone just as I am for once. In this later phase of my life, I have less and less patience with such things. I yam what I yam, and I shall wear purple and do inappropriate things if I wish.

 

You are correct that my opinions are my own, and certainly, not everyone feels that life is a one foot in front of the other proposition. I don't even feel like that every moment of every day. Mostly I make peace with the wide swaths of my reality that I realize are never going to improve or become to my liking, and while it leaves me lacking in enthusiasm, I can at least give myself permission to step away from the requirement I used to impose on myself, to Do Something Important or Meaningful, and just allow myself to exist and experience whatever pleasure I can in it. That's why I can post here when I feel like it, when I "should" really be catching up on work or vacuuming the house or changing the cat litter or mowing the lawn. That's why I can drink a hot latte every morning when I "should" be paying attention to my blood sugar. At some point I said, screw it, I'm going to quit taking everything so seriously and just let my life fritter itself away like it always wants to anyhow.

 

The paradox for me is that I actually improve my quality of life that way. Who knew.

[Vigile]

At some point I said, screw it, I'm going to quit taking everything so seriously and just let my life fritter itself away like it always wants to anyhow.

 

That's pretty familiar as it essentially describes my life. I gave up on trying to conquer the world and have instead learned from, or at least I'm in the process of learning from, wonderful people I've met across the globe who just live their lives in the now and enjoy and experience life as it is. I still have bad days, stress and worries, but the good experiences are plentiful and outweigh the bad. I've gone to some pretty outrageous extremes in doing so as well; my current passport is only a few years old and it's already had a section insert added and that only has a few pages left (just for example). In the end, all I or anyone else has is the now so if you can't learn to enjoy that, life is going to be a big drudge.

[DesertBob]

In the end, all I or anyone else has is the now so if you can't learn to enjoy that, life is going to be a big drudge.

Exactly, and that is why I have been traveling recently a lot too. If I keep hoarding for a retirement I'll never quite pull off anyway, I'll end up waiting until I'm too old to be cooped up for 24 hours in a tin can to get to other parts of the globe. The time to experience these things is now, while I have some vitality to apply to the process.

[asanerman]

None of this is to say I don't love my kids as only a parent can, but if I really cared about them, I would not have subjected them to this world.

 

 

Desert Bob, I can appreciate what you and Vigile have discussed but has any of what you have said change your sentiment regarding your children?

 

How we handle our own experience of living is one thing. Whether we feel a responsibility to risk offering existence through our offspring based upon what we know about our own existence is another.

 

To me this is a sensitive and personal question because it calls into question (1) some of our deepest assumptions about existence and (2) the myth(s) that inform our lives.

[DesertBob]

None of this is to say I don't love my kids as only a parent can, but if I really cared about them, I would not have subjected them to this world.

Desert Bob, I can appreciate what you and Vigile have discussed but has any of what you have said change your sentiment regarding your children?

I don't think it has damaged my love, affection and attachment to my children in any way. To say that I regret inflicting the harm of existence on them, is not in any way the same as saying that I wish they had never been born in the sense that most people understand that -- to mean that I wish they weren't part of my life. I am just saying that my selfish interest in having children is not sufficient reason for them to have suffered in this world.

 

I have finished Benetar's book, by the way, and I think he is excessively pessimistic, even for my taste. He actually includes things like the discomfort of a full bladder or rectum as part of the suffering of life. I think that he seriously needs to man up a little bit. I'm fond of not shitting my pants and consider an awareness of the need to take a dump as a small price to pay for having put diaper rash behind me over a half century ago

 

I also think that his ideal of a population of zero humans is unrealistic. It has no hope of ever happening shy of some government surreptitiously slipping sterility drugs into our water supply or something, an act which he actually justifies / rationalizes at one point. I would not want to impose my value judgments about the desirability of life on my fellow humans. It is not right that I exist without any choice or say in the matter, and if I had it to do again knowing what I know now, I would not have children of my own; but it would also not be right for society to adopt my view and impose it on the human race. I recognize that some people find life compelling, groovy, and delightful, and I don't begrudge them their happiness even though I am pretty sure they labor under a Pollyanna complex. As my wife used to say, I'll take a false sense of well-being if it's all I can get! So if they have well being, who cares if it's due to actual good fortune or just an incredibly rosy interpretation of bad fortune. Perception is all. I'd accept a good solid sustainable personal illusion as an solution to whatever issues I have with life -- if I could actually buy into such an illusion.

[lynx]

I am gratified to find in Benetar a formal and reasonably compelling argument for something that I have long thought but have heard absolutely not one else give voice to -- the idea that even at its very best, life is not a very compelling proposition, or as Benetar somewhat more forcefully put it, existence is always a great harm. I also agree with both Benetar and recent sociological studies that show that we are, generally as a species, hardwired to a very optimistic bias, such that we are not reliable sources of information about the levels of objective good relative to objective bad in our experience. We tend to over-estimate our future prospects, under-remember our past miseries, and take the illogical stance that something better must be just around the next corner despite all experience and evidence to the contrary. I lack much of this wiring and I suffer for it. I envy those who have it.

I lack most of this wiring too. I envy those who have it, but only to a point, because those who are less aware of the suffering and the horror of the atrocities that surround us on this planet are also those who are more likely to perpetrate them or at least look the other way and ignore. I do not want to be like that, regardless of how much grief it would spare me. Those who are incapable of empathy for other living beings (such as psychopaths) or those who are less aware of suffering are more likely to contribute to increased amounts of suffering in some way or another, however great or slight.

 

All that said, I am not prepared to take this as far as Benetar and say that as a result of the above, the human race should quit reproducing and thus effect its own extinction within the next generation. Quite aside from the fact this isn't going to happen and is therefore inherently a pointless academic exercise to even discuss, I do still see the tremendous (unrealized, untapped, squandered, wasted) potential in humanity. I do see it evolving toward better things, however slowly. Even though I find the cost of waiting out that slow evolution to be too high for me personally, and do not see it being meaningfully realized for at least many generations yet to come, I know that many do not see it that way and even if this is mere Pollyanna perception, it is a point of view that works for many. As such, the species as a whole has the right to choose to continue to exist and evolve.

I have not read the book. I've only read the intro and he does say the same thing you said above....that it will not happen. Humans will not stop reproducing. I do think much less reproduction would be beneficial. If it keeps increasing at the same rate, we are eventually going to overrun our environment and become instinct anyway. But I am of the firm opinion that it is a personal choice and I do not believe in dictating to others what they should do. If someone wants to have 10 children, then that is their free choice, regardless of what I think about it. Unfortunately those who are doing the most reproducing are often those who are living under situations that will also cause their children to endure unreasonable amounts of suffering. For example, male juvenile offenders who are determined to continue a life of crime and are destined for prison often have several babies with several different teenage girls before they are even 18 years old, and they think nothing of it. They live in the worst inner city conditions and intend to raise their children to be gang bangers. Need I say more? That is just one example of many. It outrages me, and yet we cannot do anything about it as a society without infringing on personal rights and freedoms.

 

Even though one could bemoan the tremendous past, present and future cost in human suffering towards such an uncertain and probably distant end, one could also bemoan the cost of considering all past such suffering to be a sunk cost, to cut our losses and run from this tremendous investment. There is also always the possibility of some sort of Great Leap Forward being just out of reach. There is also always a minority of people who have relatively prosperous and satisfying existences, who have the right not to be deprived of them.

Doesn't Benatar say that being deprived can only occur if one has already been born? Deprivation of a good life can only occur in hindsight, after being born into consciousness. I think that is why he is saying that not reproducing is not depriving those who are nonexistent of anything. That seems to be an important element of his philosophy. Some of the eastern philosophies believe we are here to have this experience...to "experience" through this physicality. But I still ask, who determined that we must be here for this? That sounds too much like "we are here for a reason" and where would that reason come from if not from some greater consciousness, creator, or god? And yet, many of those same philosophies do not include a belief in a creator god.

 

For all these reasons I do not subscribe to many of the key responses that Benetar has to the observed suffering and harm of existence. I do not hold that it is immoral for mankind to do anything but give up and cease to exist; I do not hold that people should quit having babies and abort the ones they do conceive.

I do not hold to that extreme either, but I do think he's raising some important issues.

 

Tellingly, even I am willing to accept many of the small pains and annoyances of living as a given. I don't mind having to work for a living, give up some personal rights in exchange for being able to live in a society and enjoy the benefits of division of labor, having to floss, brush, pee, poop, shower, shave, go through adolescence, courtship and other awkwardnesses, and so forth. I am willing to put up with a lot, so long as it basically works in the long haul and I get some purchase from it in the long climb towards my personal goals. My objection to life is precisely that it does hold so much hope and promise, and mostly utterly fails to realize it. My objection is that I am now passing from the time of one's life where it gives to you, and instead starts taking away, and yet I have still not realized a net benefit from having bothered with all that overhead of living.

Hypothetically, I'm curious if you'd feel the same way if your life was a living torture in every aspect. If you were destitute, homeless, and had a disease that forced you to live with excruciating pain every second of the day, do you have any idea what your response might be or how you'd deal with that? If you were ever in those shoes, would you want to carry on? If your only personal goal was to crawl through the day in agony, would your purchase be gone? I'm not just asking you Bob, but anyone who might be reading this. I'm curious about the various responses to this.

 

I'm a good and decent person, a loving person, who gives much and asks little in return from life and from the people in my life, and yet life and in most cases the people in it have not afforded me the respect of meeting even my minimal requirements. And as I look at the people in my life whom I love and respect, life and love have been equally unkind to, and disrespectful of, them. This is not right, and it cannot be made right. This is my objection. My response is not to pitch a fit and try to convince my fellow man to throw in the towel; I pass the torch to others and wish them better success than I had. And as for myself, I do the only thing I can do; I keep on trying and do my best to let go of bad memories and hold fast to the good and keep up some guttering candle flame of hope.

Well said. What else can we do?

 

Benetar, by the way, does not advocate suicide as a personal solution. He's intelligent enough to recognize that even if human life as a general proposition is best not bothered with, once you have life, and the hopes, dreams and aspirations that come with it, it's a very personal and arguably questionable decision to give up on that too. He also recognizes what I do: I have no right to escape my personal pain when it may well increase the personal pain of others.

How do we weigh personal pain against those who are secondary to it in this regard? That is a difficult question. It depends on the degree of the personal pain. I would not want a loved one to suffer horrific pain in order to spare me from suffering their loss.

 

I have, in particular, a son and a stepson and a fiancee who would probably be destabilized by such an act, as they all have depression / anxiety issues and have their own struggles with motivation. They deserve a better role model than I would be for them if I gave up. They also have a right to count on my being there for them, as I've implicitly and explicitly committed myself to without condition. There are other people in my life on whom I have squandered my love, who have shown themselves to be self-absorbed, ruthless arses who I am pretty sure would shrug and move on in my absence, but there are always a few made of nobler stuff who deserve my persistence and fortitude.

Absolutely, and you are right to continue on for them, but I suspect your suffering has not reached an ongoing level at which you cannot tolerate it. If it did, I suspect they would be suffering anyway, because they would feel for you in your torment. It can be complicated, can't it? It's horrible to watch another suffer. We put our pets to sleep because we cannot bear for them to suffer, and it's not easy, because we have to weigh our own pain and loss in doing so against their suffering. Why should we see it any differently for humans?

 

That's it in a nutshell. If you're thinking of reading the book for yourself, I don't know that it provides anything beyond my summary that's worth your money, unless you'd enjoy pursuing the technical aspects of Benetar's philosophical arguments. The main value of Benetar's work is in being willing to look at life as it is, raw and uncensored, without sentiment, and then to propose ways of understanding it in that light, and, possibly, dealing with it more honestly -- and maybe even ultimately more effectively.

Thank you, Bob. I really appreciate this in-depth assessment of the book.

 

I would like to see people take procreation as much less of a right or responsibility and as more of an awesome power to be yielded carefully, with great care for the potential, and even likely suffering we will inflict upon our children. I'd like to see the birth rate fall enough for the worldwide population to decline, for the children who are born to have less competition for more resources, and to be mindfully brought into existence by parents who have done as much as possible to prepare a good life for them. These are the sorts of positive outcomes that could arise from acceptance of Benetar's basic thesis. Alas, his provocateur approach to the subject, his impractical, geeky, misplaced idealism will probably torpedo his credibility and any useful influence that would arise from his book.

I agree.

[lynx]

He actually includes things like the discomfort of a full bladder or rectum as part of the suffering of life. I think that he seriously needs to man up a little bit. I'm fond of not shitting my pants and consider an awareness of the need to take a dump as a small price to pay for having put diaper rash behind me over a half century ago

[DesertBob]

Doesn't Benatar say that being deprived can only occur if one has already been born? Deprivation of a good life can only occur in hindsight, after being born into consciousness. I think that is why he is saying that not reproducing is not depriving those who are nonexistent of anything. That seems to be an important element of his philosophy.

Yes, he points out that harm can only occur to the living. My point was only that some people do honestly feel that whatever harm their existence has brought them is more than outweighed by the good, and it's possible some of them may even be right. I say, more power to them, and if they honestly believe that life will be a net benefit to their own progeny, who am I to second guess them or interfere?

Some of the eastern philosophies believe we are here to have this experience...to "experience" through this physicality. But I still ask, who determined that we must be here for this?

Even Sagan said that "we are the cosmos' way of knowing itself." And he was an atheist. Although he may have said that in a moment of ebullient narration for his TV series, and I don't know how seriously he actually meant it.

 

I agree with your point, however, who consulted you or I about this often unwanted job of observation?

That sounds too much like "we are here for a reason" and where would that reason come from if not from some greater consciousness, creator, or god? And yet, many of those same philosophies do not include a belief in a creator god.

I think that eastern thought is more along the lines of an impersonal Consciousness that is not omniscient or even omnipotent -- not the conventional concept of deity. Simply mind for the sake of mind, which simply exists, and doesn't really have a purpose other than to reduce its own entropy through acquisition of experience. You and I are supposed to be individuated expressions of that, like bubbles of that mind leaching into this reality. I call this "the cosmic sock puppet concept". It is sheer speculation, though arguably more intelligent speculation than that of outright theism. I think it is just barely possible that this could be so. That my consciousness and yours come from a common source or pool of some kind, and that you and I are in that sense connected. That when we die, the stuff of our consciousness (if you can call it "stuff") returns to that common pool, no longer exists recognizably as you or I. Just as the elements that make up our bodies will disorganize and no longer will be recognizable as us, though in a sense those elements are never destroyed, only converted into other forms.

 

It is interesting to speculate about but not particularly useful or verifiable.

Hypothetically, I'm curious if you'd feel the same way if your life was a living torture in every aspect. If you were destitute, homeless, and had a disease that forced you to live with excruciating pain every second of the day, do you have any idea what your response might be or how you'd deal with that? If you were ever in those shoes, would you want to carry on? If your only personal goal was to crawl through the day in agony, would your purchase be gone? I'm not just asking you Bob, but anyone who might be reading this. I'm curious about the various responses to this ... How do we weigh personal pain against those who are secondary to it in this regard? That is a difficult question. It depends on the degree of the personal pain. I would not want a loved one to suffer horrific pain in order to spare me from suffering their loss.

Thanks to the particularly hideous, miserable, baroque agony that my wife endured before she found the mercy of death, I can tell you a great deal about that particular subject. My firm belief is that, yes, there is a point beyond which there is no purpose in continuing on. Though I grimace to use a potentially trite phrase, there comes a point where there is no quality of life. Where it is selfish for your survivors not to release you. My wife lived as long as she did through sheer force of will, and finally, when she was convinced no stone had been unturned and she could endure no longer, she literally asked me for permission to die. I gave it, and she was gone within a week. It was the hardest and best thing I ever did, especially given that her illness provided misery but not sure death.

 

It's one thing to have a doctor tell you that you have six months to live, and that the last two months will be hell. But at least it's finite and quantifiable, and even if you elect to jump off a cliff, you know you're only speeding up the inevitable. But for a doctor to tell you that you will just have open ended suffering, that a small percentage of people recover or remiss, but most do not, that a few die but most do not except by their own hand ... that's a horse of a different color.

 

My wife used to say we have have more compassion for dogs than for people. It's considered inhumane to not put an animal down that's in incurable pain and has no quality of life, but it's considered humane to do the same thing to a person. It's nuts.

 

I was, however, speaking of the general case, such as myself ... there are times when I really don't care to put up with life -- sometimes I'm tired of hurting, but my pain is not so great that I want to risk influencing others to pursue what some would consider a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Life does get better at times, even for me.

 

My stepson for example has depression issues, but they are magnified by the angst of adolescence. He looks up to me, and I would not want him emulating me in this regard when he's going through a rough patch. I would not want that to be my legacy to him. But on the other hand if, as was the case with my oldest brother, I had a bone cancer hanging off the side of my leg and simply didn't want to hang around an extra two weeks to experience any more of that, my stepson would not be within his rights to demand that I not end my life, nor would there be much gain in it for him -- arguably it would even be sadistic of him.

 

To me, that illustrates the distinction pretty well. It gets a little more into uncharted territory in the middle area in between "I'm disappointed with my life" and "I'm going to die anyway in a few weeks, why drag it out". Say you are just miserable in a way that, if you had to put up with it for a day, it's no big deal, but a month is a grind and a lifetime prospect of it is intolerable to you. There is a documentary made in Spain about just such a case, a man who broke his neck in a diving accident and was a quadriplegic. After 20 years he had enough and he chose not to go on, despite having loving and willing caretakers and being in no actual pain. He eventually won the right to die. It's a famous case over there. I feel that was his choice, that society should have enough sophistication to distinguish between clinical depression and reactive depression, that no one should be forced to endure an existence against their will, even if it's just uncompelling or undiginified for them.

[lynx]

Yes, he points out that harm can only occur to the living. My point was only that some people do honestly feel that whatever harm their existence has brought them is more than outweighed by the good, and it's possible some of them may even be right. I say, more power to them, and if they honestly believe that life will be a net benefit to their own progeny, who am I to second guess them or interfere?

I should have explained better. What I meant to say was the deprivation of pleasure can only occur in the living, so the nonliving cannot be deprived of joy. Just as with harm, pleasure of living can only occur in the living. But since I haven't read the book, you would know better than me if that is the gist of it.

 

 

I think that eastern thought is more along the lines of an impersonal Consciousness that is not omniscient or even omnipotent -- not the conventional concept of deity. Simply mind for the sake of mind, which simply exists, and doesn't really have a purpose other than to reduce its own entropy through acquisition of experience. You and I are supposed to be individuated expressions of that, like bubbles of that mind leaching into this reality. I call this "the cosmic sock puppet concept". It is sheer speculation, though arguably more intelligent speculation than that of outright theism.

Yes, that is true of most eastern philosophy, but as with everything else, there is not one eastern philosophy, and I have heard this idea that we are "here to experience this" from some eastern thinkers, suggesting purpose in their statement, but it may have been a misinterpretation on my part.

 

I think it is just barely possible that this could be so. That my consciousness and yours come from a common source or pool of some kind, and that you and I are in that sense connected. That when we die, the stuff of our consciousness (if you can call it "stuff") returns to that common pool, no longer exists recognizably as you or I. Just as the elements that make up our bodies will disorganize and no longer will be recognizable as us, though in a sense those elements are never destroyed, only converted into other forms. It is interesting to speculate about but not particularly useful or verifiable.

I think it's possible that this could be so too. And since it's my nature to speculate, this is certainly something I've speculated about, but as you pointed out, it's not verifiable.

 

Thanks to the particularly hideous, miserable, baroque agony that my wife endured before she found the mercy of death, I can tell you a great deal about that particular subject. My firm belief is that, yes, there is a point beyond which there is no purpose in continuing on. Though I grimace to use a potentially trite phrase, there comes a point where there is no quality of life. Where it is selfish for your survivors not to release you. My wife lived as long as she did through sheer force of will, and finally, when she was convinced no stone had been unturned and she could endure no longer, she literally asked me for permission to die. I gave it, and she was gone within a week. It was the hardest and best thing I ever did, especially given that her illness provided misery but not sure death.

I knew that of all people, you would have an eloquent, well thought out answer to this. Thank you.

 

It's one thing to have a doctor tell you that you have six months to live, and that the last two months will be hell. But at least it's finite and quantifiable, and even if you elect to jump off a cliff, you know you're only speeding up the inevitable. But for a doctor to tell you that you will just have open ended suffering, that a small percentage of people recover or remiss, but most do not, that a few die but most do not except by their own hand ... that's a horse of a different color.

Indeed it is. Those are the types of situations that are most heart-wrenching.

 

My wife used to say we have have more compassion for dogs than for people. It's considered inhumane to not put an animal down that's in incurable pain and has no quality of life, but it's considered humane to do the same thing to a person. It's nuts.

Yes, we really have that one backwards, don't we? It all stems from religion, particularly Xtianity, which drilled into us this notion that we must endure suffering until god is ready to take us. Human euthanasia, even for humane reasons, when someone is going to die anyway, is considered to be "playing god" and is the equivalent of murder to Xtians.

 

I was, however, speaking of the general case, such as myself ... there are times when I really don't care to put up with life -- sometimes I'm tired of hurting, but my pain is not so great that I want to risk influencing others to pursue what some would consider a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Life does get better at times, even for me.

I think that's the same reason most of us hang on to the bitter end, despite the bad times.

 

My stepson for example has depression issues, but they are magnified by the angst of adolescence. He looks up to me, and I would not want him emulating me in this regard when he's going through a rough patch. I would not want that to be my legacy to him. But on the other hand if, as was the case with my oldest brother, I had a bone cancer hanging off the side of my leg and simply didn't want to hang around an extra two weeks to experience any more of that, my stepson would not be within his rights to demand that I not end my life, nor would there be much gain in it for him -- arguably it would even be sadistic of him.

Yes, exactly. I think your responses to both your first example and your second example would be very appropriate.

 

To me, that illustrates the distinction pretty well. It gets a little more into uncharted territory in the middle area in between "I'm disappointed with my life" and "I'm going to die anyway in a few weeks, why drag it out". Say you are just miserable in a way that, if you had to put up with it for a day, it's no big deal, but a month is a grind and a lifetime prospect of it is intolerable to you. There is a documentary made in Spain about just such a case, a man who broke his neck in a diving accident and was a quadriplegic. After 20 years he had enough and he chose not to go on, despite having loving and willing caretakers and being in no actual pain. He eventually won the right to die. It's a famous case over there. I feel that was his choice, that society should have enough sophistication to distinguish between clinical depression and reactive depression, that no one should be forced to endure an existence against their will, even if it's just uncompelling or undiginified for them.

I completely agree. Right-to-die is something I strongly believe should be the right of every individual, obviously, since it's listed in my profile. Do you know the name of the documentary and if it's been translated to English? I would love to watch it.

[DesertBob]

I should have explained better. What I meant to say was the deprivation of pleasure can only occur in the living, so the nonliving cannot be deprived of joy. Just as with harm, pleasure of living can only occur in the living. But since I haven't read the book, you would know better than me if that is the gist of it.

I believe he did make that point.

I completely agree. Right-to-die is something I strongly believe should be the right of every individual, obviously, since it's listed in my profile. Do you know the name of the documentary and if it's been translated to English? I would love to watch it.

It had English subtitles. And I misremembered, it was a dramatization, not a documentary. Nicely made. The title is The Sea Inside. It even won an Academy Award in 2004 (best foreign language film).

[DesertBob]

Yes, we really have that one backwards, don't we? It all stems from religion, particularly Xtianity, which drilled into us this notion that we must endure suffering until god is ready to take us. Human euthanasia, even for humane reasons, when someone is going to die anyway, is considered to be "playing god" and is the equivalent of murder to Xtians.

By the way, I don't consider the assisted suicide law in Oregon to be much of a help. It's so restrictive that I doubt it eases much suffering. As I understand it, to get assistance you must be diagnosed with a fatal illness with 6 or less months to live and I believe you need a couple of doctors to agree with this. Then you must go through counseling with a couple of different professionals to vet you for depression and to make sure you're doing it of your own free will. This sounds great, but the time, expense and energy to jump through all these hoops is a lot to ask of terminally ill people who may be suffering greatly. By the time you jump through rings of fire and eat little pieces of glass to get your shot, I don't know how much suffering you're really being spared.

 

But I guess it's a step in the right direction, however tentative and incremental it may be.

[lynx]

It had English subtitles. And I misremembered, it was a dramatization, not a documentary. Nicely made. The title is The Sea Inside. It even won an Academy Award in 2004 (best foreign language film).

Thanks, Bob. I found it on YouTube! I'm going to watch it tonight. This page has the full movie, if anyone's interested:

 

http://www.youtube.c...u/8/uZYE6QteRiU

 

By the way, I don't consider the assisted suicide law in Oregon to be much of a help. It's so restrictive that I doubt it eases much suffering. As I understand it, to get assistance you must be diagnosed with a fatal illness with 6 or less months to live and I believe you need a couple of doctors to agree with this. Then you must go through counseling with a couple of different professionals to vet you for depression and to make sure you're doing it of your own free will. This sounds great, but the time, expense and energy to jump through all these hoops is a lot to ask of terminally ill people who may be suffering greatly. By the time you jump through rings of fire and eat little pieces of glass to get your shot, I don't know how much suffering you're really being spared. But I guess it's a step in the right direction, however tentative and incremental it may be.

Yes, it's a step in the right direction, but it still takes so much control away from the dying individual, and as you say, makes them jump through hoops at a time when they are least capable of dealing with that. And what if it's denied? In addition to that, those not living in Oregon are out of luck. The fact that we have laws against this is preposterous and an unacceptable violation of an individual's rights. It seems to me that it comes down to two things - religion and money. There is huge profit involved. Keeping people alive as long as possible is a very lucrative endeavor for the medical industry.

[Vigile]

I finally got around to listening. TBH, I couldn't get through it as I found it repetitive and a bit boring. Framing life as a center of suffering is a subjective definition just as view life as joy is subjective. It seems to me the man overestimates the value of suffering. Moreover, his intent to persuade people not to procreate while concluding ending one's own life is not the message he wishes to get across is a cop out. If you accept his premise that life is suffering, then you can reasonably conclude it is ok to not only end your own life, but end as many lives as possible. Preferably, trigger the nuclear football and end all life at once so as not to create more suffering as those left behind grieve their losses.

 

I would even argue that he leaps rashly to a conclusion ignoring, or at least discounting all other perspectives that can be applied to the value of life and arrives at a simplistic conclusion.

[DesertBob]

Framing life as a center of suffering is a subjective definition just as view life as joy is subjective.

Of course it is. Both are observations about people's subjective experience of and/or response to living. The question is, what is the alternative? Numbness? Indifference?

It seems to me the man overestimates the value of suffering.

Agreed ... if by that you mean that it's wrong to say that suffering is ennobling.

Moreover, his intent to persuade people not to procreate while concluding ending one's own life is not the message he wishes to get across is a cop out. If you accept his premise that life is suffering, then you can reasonably conclude it is ok to not only end your own life, but end as many lives as possible. Preferably, trigger the nuclear football and end all life at once so as not to create more suffering as those left behind grieve their losses.

I somewhat agree that it's a cop out. If life is not worth conceiving, it's very potentially not worth living, either. I believe people should be free to personally chose to live, or not. It is nevertheless a choice that is complex and highly personal. It can NEVER be imposed on others, and so the government imposing any kind of birth control or extinction program, as well as encouraging or discouraging rational suicide, as well as "using the nuclear football", would not follow. I don't think we need be concerned about those things anyway, because as a species, we are so strongly wired for (1) optimism and (2) survival.

I would even argue that he leaps rashly to a conclusion ignoring, or at least discounting all other perspectives that can be applied to the value of life and arrives at a simplistic conclusion.

I think he's probably smarter than that; what he does is over-think and over-argue his case. It's a clumsy attempt to be provocative, and perhaps, a misguided attempt to get traction for a losing argument, any way he can. It probably does have some shock value to get people to think, to jump them out of their comfortable perspectives. My guess is that Benetar would be content if he manages to put some brakes on population expansion, which is arguably a good idea even if you embrace life as a benefit rather than a harm.

[Vigile]

Both are observations about people's subjective experience of and/or response to living. The question is, what is the alternative? Numbness?

 

I'm not sure I understand why there must be an alternative here. We are discussing definitions and perception, not choices people make.

 

if by that you mean that it's wrong to say that suffering is ennobling.

 

Perhaps, but what I meant was he seems to isolate suffering from all of life's other experiences and seems to argue suffering is the trump card that cancels everything else out.

 

I believe people should be free to personally chose to live, or not.

 

Yes, I too. If someone decides they've had enough, I certainly wouldn't hold anything against them.

 

It is nevertheless a choice that is complex and highly personal.

 

I agree, but if this is the argument he is making, then it's contradictory as choosing to procreate is also complex and highly personal. Thus, if he wishes to influence morality on one and not the other, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too. Personally, though, I think he takes the position that he does because he realizes just how highly unpalatable it would be to argue it's best for others just to off themselves. Others, I think many would agree, might find his argument that life isn't worth beginning equally unpalatable to them, even if not to Benatar.

 

I don't think we need be concerned about those things anyway, because as a species, we are so strongly wired for (1) optimism and (2) survival.

 

Exactly.

 

I think he's probably smarter than that; what he does is over-think and over-argue his case. It's a clumsy attempt to be provocative, and perhaps, a misguided attempt to get traction for a losing argument, any way he can. It probably does have some shock value to get people to think, to jump them out of their comfortable perspectives.

 

I just wish he could have given me something to find it reasonable; e.g., something that would allow me to say that "while I don't feel the same way, I see where he's coming from."

 

My guess is that Benetar would be content if he manages to put some brakes on population expansion, which is arguably a good idea even if you embrace life as a benefit rather than a harm.

 

Absolutely. If he were arguing that overpopulated, impoverished areas of the world would be better served to not reproduce, I could certainly find agreement with that. I never understood how a person could choose to get pregnant and give birth to not just one, but several children when they can't even feed the ones they have and when they are living in the middle of a war zone. But this is a very different situation than asking a middle class family in a place like Sweden to consider not reproducing.

[Rev R]

From what I have gathered, the suicide and murder are unacceptable bit is handled in chapter 7 of the book.

[lynx]

I'm not sure I understand why there must be an alternative here. We are discussing definitions and perception, not choices people make.

Maybe what Bob is trying to say is that Benater does not overestimate the value of suffering if that is his perception of it. In other words, he is not overestimating if for himself (totally subjective, yes). Certainly he cannot estimate for others, which is exactly what it sounds like he's trying to do (a mistake), but if his philosophy is based on his perception of suffering, then he is estimating it accurately, but only from his own personal perspective. It is not a choice--that is true; however, maybe he could make a choice to completely numb himself to it in some way, which would be the only alternative. I'll let Bob correct me where I'm wrong.

 

Perhaps, but what I meant was he seems to isolate suffering from all of life's other experiences and seems to argue suffering is the trump card that cancels everything else out.

I keep coming back to this -- it seems to me that he's not talking about isolating a certain experience, but pointing out that there is no experiences in the first place if we are never born. There are no other experiences to be canceled out because there are no life's experiences at all, neither good or bad. I think he's looking at it from that angle, as opposed to our evaluations of the experience after we're already here. The problem is that we cannot separate the two and can only evaluate any this from a conscious perspective. I think the former is what he's attempting to do and it's difficult to grasp. He's trying to approach this from a angle of never having had any experiences (such as the time before we were born and there was just nothing), and yet his philosophy is based on suffering, which is an experience.

 

I agree, but if this is the argument he is making, then it's contradictory as choosing to procreate is also complex and highly personal. Thus, if he wishes to influence morality on one and not the other, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too. Personally, though, I think he takes the position that he does because he realizes just how highly unpalatable it would be to argue it's best for others just to off themselves. Others, I think many would agree, might find his argument that life isn't worth beginning equally unpalatable to them, even if not to Benatar.

This gets a little sticky, because while it is entirely a highly personal decision to choose to procreate, the person being conceived and created does not have a choice in the matter. Someone else is deciding for them or it's just happening through momentary actions without any consideration whatsoever. We cannot and should not "impose" procreation restrictions on anyone, as Bob said. But it seems that what Benatar is trying to say is that we ARE imposing life on another human being who cannot choose whether they want to come into existence or not. We are approving of one kind of imposition (reproduction) and not another (preventing reproduction)...granted, there are some differences between the two. It's a wild idea, but I think that's what he's getting at. Maybe he just wants humans to understand the serious responsibility of creating life. I can't imagine Benatar would be stupid enough to advocate government control of reproduction, but perhaps he would like for everyone to do it on their own because it somehow makes sense to them (he has acknowledged it's not going to happen). I highly doubt he is advocating killing everyone alive, but I do see why you're finding some contradictions in all of this, Vigile.

 

I just wish he could have given me something to find it reasonable; e.g., something that would allow me to say that "while I don't feel the same way, I see where he's coming from."

I know what you mean. I'm only able to see where's he's coming from because I'm looking at it from the angle I've explained above, from an absence of existence and experience, but I'm not completely sure what I have concluded about that. What I am sure of is that there are holes in this and I always think of them while I'm writing these posts, but I don't have the energy to refute all of my own comments.

 

Absolutely. If he were arguing that overpopulated, impoverished areas of the world would be better served to not reproduce, I could certainly find agreement with that. I never understood how a person could choose to get pregnant and give birth to not just one, but several children when they can't even feed the ones they have and when they are living in the middle of a war zone. But this is a very different situation than asking a middle class family in a place like Sweden to consider not reproducing.

I agree completely

[Onyx]

Not suffering from non existence already happens in this world but not obviously how this philosopher would have seen it. Quite a lot of semen are wasted, a lot of babies get miscarriaged, aborted or murdered. Extraordinarily rarely (this is a guess of mine) there would be a condition where all the senses are cancelled out, so at least physical suffering is cancelled out but I doubt that they wouldn't not suffer psychological and emotional suffering. It is extraordinary enough to have things non existing where things are existing because there is a balance in having them not existing and to exist. I doubt having all of humanity basically terminating itself would benefit anybody but would only increase suffering (this is evidently what this philosopher is concerned with) because life and consciousness are extraordinarily brief, a interruption to the basic mode of non existence - meaning this might cut short already brief lives and inhibiting them from potential joys and triumphs. Besides, he will get his wish - because before we existed, we did not; after we exist, we will not. The only exceptions I would make to the scheme of life, death and non existence (probably - you never know) are euthanasia, abortion and contraceptives as well as cutting populations down but to keep birthrates reasonably low. Besides that, the suggestion that humanity terminate itself because suffering exists seems rather absurd.

 

I believe suffering is not the only thing in life because there is joy and success and love and a million of other things to be discovered. If you are to ask me to terminate myself, I would be quite offended and say no. This is because I consider life and the general quality of life to be unpredictable, not quite how anybody would expect. It is only my choice (not anybody's) to refuse euthanasia or suicide because of that objection. Why euthanise, terminate or kill myself if in time I suddenly feel brave or happy or fed up with the bullshit itself or if life has presented me with an unmissable opportunity to get better or a better circumstance or transcendent or something far stranger than I can imagine? Any of that I would not want to miss for all the supposed benefits of nonexistence. Life is a mystery, and I would not squander it. It is my choice and my choice alone that I think this. I would not be arrogant to foist my personal life philosophy on anybody.

 

However, yes, there is suffering, but I believe people can get past it or escape it or see it as nothing. Of course there is suffering so great that one cannot endure it and I would not begrudge them euthanasia. It would be heartless otherwise. But I believe most suffering is caused by a lack of love and other people hurting you. It's the most painful form of suffering there is. Small wonder suicide exists. It's so heartless that people can try to ruin other people's lives. Goodness knows, I truly hate this suffering, I'm no stoic. People do move on but there is still scars. But it is truly amazing that people can and do overcome this unimaginable suffering. All you do is to express love and empathy towards the person who is considering suicide. Seems the simplest thing in the world but it's tough to do in real life. But I believe it is the right thing to do. All right things to do are quite difficult to do, though doable - but there is a considerable pay off in doing it. It might be as simple as feeling good ranging to the person being your best friend for life. In which case, I believe good actions are common, it's so common that it goes unreported. No, whether common or not, we should not take this for granted; we should be screaming on the front page of every newspaper in the world that "GOOD EXISTS!" and dancing in the streets. I really and truly think this is a truly amazing thing, a miracle even. Never mind God. Goodness and helping others is where it's at. Of course, goodness is not the only answer to suffering but it's quite a powerful one. Eradicating diseases and good policy in governments does help too. There are so much we should do and are doing to reduce suffering. Earth and the universe are the only things we've got, so no need to waste the lives we have got. Let's live in the now and plan for the future so we have a good past.

 

Besides, life is worth having because there exists comedy, laughter and love. Without them, the world would be a truly poorer place indeed.

[Vigile]

There are no other experiences to be canceled out because there are no life's experiences at all, neither good or bad.

 

I get that, but in order to arrive at the idea that this would be a good thing in the first place, he must make the assumption that suffering of others is so bad as to justify suggesting it is better to deny the existence of offspring. People reproduce based on instinct, which Bob correctly points out. People also reproduce for other reasons, including the desire to love, and bring life and joy to someone else. Thus, most people disagree with Benatar's assessment that it is better not to have existed than to bring life into existence. In the video, Benatar insisted that people overestimate their love of existence in the first place, claiming statistics back this up. He didn't provide the data in the interview (understandable I guess) but from listening to him, I wonder if he is not claiming data that shows most suffer somehow indicates most are in denial about their joy of life too. This would again be a weak extrapolation from his own assessment that suffering somehow cancels out other experiences in those of us who do exist.

 

Sorry if that's convoluted, I'm still drinking my a.m. coffee.

 

But it seems that what Benatar is trying to say is that we ARE imposing life on another human being who cannot choose whether they want to come into existence or not.

 

True, that's one way to frame it. Most, I think, would frame it as offering the gift of life though. Again, this comes down to Benatar's personal views. It's unscientific to base a conclusion on personal experience and perspective.

[Tabula Rasa]

I haven't watched the videos, but I've got a feeling I don't need to. I've had these grim as hell ideas as well. Not only that it might have been better for none of us to be born, but it might have been better for life to never have evolved on this planet. I've even had the extremely dark idea, that life is a cruel joke played by for lack of a better term"The Void." That there's some sort of thing, not a god, but something that made the universe because it knew that life evolving on any world would suffer and this thing, get's it's rocks off that way. I know that sounds like some sort of weird religious bullshit, but it's what I've considered.

 

As for why Benatar says we would have been better off having never been born, but yet he condemns suicide, I don't think it's out of any real concern for those who are troubled by his writings.

No, it's because if he doesn't discourage suicide, too many poor, depressed,and disenfranchised people might take his philosophy completely to heart, and you'd have a suicide epidemic, no I'll dare say a pandemic. Benatar wants to get the fat checks from his books, but if people truly embrace the bleakness of his worldview, society will collapse. I'm being cynical as hell, I realize that, but if Benatar really believed 100 percent in what he espouses, he would have killed himself by now.

 

 

As for me, as depressed as I get sometimes, I guess I carry on because my survival instinct is so damned strong, and while life is shitty a lot of the time, death, the extinction of awareness, of consciousness is really goddamn scary. Aside from that, I do have some people who love me, and I don't want to hurt them, and even if this life is nothing but pure meaningless bullshit, living on despite it is a way of extending the middle finger to the concept of Nihilism. Basically, I guess I see how pointless things are, but by living on, I say fuck you to hopelessness and despair.

 

It isn't easy, but I keep on , keepin' on as best as I can

[lynx]

In the video, Benatar insisted that people overestimate their love of existence in the first place, claiming statistics back this up. He didn't provide the data in the interview (understandable I guess) but from listening to him, I wonder if he is not claiming data that shows most suffer somehow indicates most are in denial about their joy of life too. This would again be a weak extrapolation from his own assessment that suffering somehow cancels out other experiences in those of us who do exist.

I'm noticing an interesting dichotomy. Is it that Benatar is overestimating suffering, or is it that others are overestimating joy and happiness? Or both? Or neither? It can go both ways. Both sides seem to want to make that accusation about those who see it differently than they do. Bob said something about humans being naturally wired for optimism, which would make sense from an evolutionary/survival standpoint. I recall watching a TED video a while back which explained that humans are wired to be able to go through very tragic events and then return to a state of happiness equal to that which they had before, and equal to that of those who have not experienced tragedies and are well-off, even though their lives have been negatively altered from it in some permanent kind of way. I wonder if Benatar used the same data used in that study for his idea that people overestimate their happiness? But that does not necessarily mean they are "overestimating" it if that is the reality they are experiencing. It just means they are more adaptable to survival...maybe?

 

It's possible that some simply don't have this wiring, which is why they seem to be overestimating suffering (the reverse of the above), because they are experiencing it with greater intensity and are not experiencing any balance of optimism and joy. And for those who are wired for optimism, it is also possible that they are experiencing their joy with greater intensity than they do their suffering or their awareness of the existence of suffering. But then again, we are brought back to the same issue, which is that perhaps no one is really overestimating but they are just experiencing what they do, because the intensity with which either suffering or joy are experienced is specific to the individual. That is why we can't make rules about how much others should or should not value their lives, whether they see it as a gift or a curse.

 

Sorry if that's convoluted, I'm still drinking my a.m. coffee.

You never sound convoluted, Vigile. I'm probably the one who sounds convoluted!

 

True, that's one way to frame it. Most, I think, would frame it as offering the gift of life though. Again, this comes down to Benatar's personal views. It's unscientific to base a conclusion on personal experience and perspective.

Yes, again, I think how one frames it is based on subjective experience. I certainly hope Benatar is not suggesting that this is some kind of science, but rather, food for thought.

[Tabula Rasa]

Please forgive this slight bit of thread derailment, but with the somewhat grim subject matter, I find that it may be necessary to post something upbeat.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc-ISkHPGSs

Now back to the original thread topic.

 

[Vigile]

Bob said something about humans being naturally wired for optimism, which would make sense from an evolutionary/survival standpoint.

 

This kind of goes to the point I've been considering, but haven't really commented on yet. Perception here is what matters. If you are wired for optimism and you are optimistic and generally joyful despite interim suffering, then that is the reality for you. If this is the case, Benatar can't make the claim that people are overestimating their happiness.

 

This reminds me of something Tony Robbins wrote (yeah, I know he's a hack, but he makes a lot of good points too). Paraphrasing from memory, he wrote that it's not things that we want, but the feelings those things give us. Thus, if I take a lab rat and give it a magic elixir that makes him happy regardless of his circumstances and then poke him repeatedly with a stick, I can't say he's overestimating his happiness, he's still happy regardless of what I think he should be experiencing.

 

Anyway, I'm just arm chair quarterbacking him right now, using common sense. What I know of common sense is it often makes you come across as an idiot to those who have specialized knowledge of the subject, so I'll stop now.

[DesertBob]

Bob said something about humans being naturally wired for optimism, which would make sense from an evolutionary/survival standpoint. I recall watching a TED video a while back which explained that humans are wired to be able to go through very tragic events and then return to a state of happiness equal to that which they had before, and equal to that of those who have not experienced tragedies and are well-off, even though their lives have been negatively altered from it in some permanent kind of way. I wonder if Benatar used the same data used in that study for his idea that people overestimate their happiness?

I don't think he's using that particular data. That data is about "happiness set points" and the fact that people tend, within surprisingly broad limits, to return to their personal set point regardless of the severity of any loss or setback -- or any gain, for that matter. The canonical example is that two years after becoming a paraplegic or winning the lottery, most any given person will be approximately as (un)happy as they were before either event.

 

The studies I believe he's using are the ones that say that people tend to under-estimate past suffering and over-estimate future prospects. Some of this research was featured in a recent issue of, I think, Time Magazine which has disappeared from my coffee table. It's related the the "set point" theory -- there's some overlap -- but it's not the same thing.

 

As you point out, such biases make sense from an evolutionary standpoint because people who forget pain and anticipate pleasure, often contrary to both experience and their reasonable prospects, are going to be more persistent and more likely to decide to procreate, etc.

 

My personal opinion is that, lacking some of this wiring, I am simply perceiving something closer to the simple truth, which is basically that life is hard. I don't think anyone would disagree with that intellectually; it's just a question how big a "but ..." they would append to that observation. But it's worth it! But there is a lot of good, too! And so forth.

But then again, we are brought back to the same issue, which is that perhaps no one is really overestimating but they are just experiencing what they do, because the intensity with which either suffering or joy are experienced is specific to the individual. That is why we can't make rules about how much others should or should not value their lives, whether they see it as a gift or a curse.

Precisely. Which is also why we can't solve people's problems in any decisive way by simply suggesting that they change their perspective. It requires a certain amount of energy to move very far away from one's perceptual "center" and remain there.

[lynx]

I don't think he's using that particular data. That data is about "happiness set points" and the fact that people tend, within surprisingly broad limits, to return to their personal set point regardless of the severity of any loss or setback -- or any gain, for that matter. The canonical example is that two years after becoming a paraplegic or winning the lottery, most any given person will be approximately as (un)happy as they were before either event.

 

The studies I believe he's using are the ones that say that people tend to under-estimate past suffering and over-estimate future prospects. Some of this research was featured in a recent issue of, I think, Time Magazine which has disappeared from my coffee table. It's related the the "set point" theory -- there's some overlap -- but it's not the same thing.

The "set point" data does sound like there's some overlap, but the other research is probably more specific to what he's asserting. At least he's using some kind of data and not just pulling it off the top of this head. Since you're the only one here who's read the book so far, the rest of us are just "arm-chairing" in this discussion, so your input brings some clarity.

 

As you point out, such biases make sense from an evolutionary standpoint because people who forget pain and anticipate pleasure, often contrary to both experience and their reasonable prospects, are going to be more persistent and more likely to decide to procreate, etc.

Exactly.

 

Precisely. Which is also why we can't solve people's problems in any decisive way by simply suggesting that they change their perspective. It requires a certain amount of energy to move very far away from one's perceptual "center" and remain there.

Yes, and in some cases, it may require a great deal of energy ... more energy than is reasonable to expend.