/lit/ - Literature

>>17070466
any organism that wants to die is, by definition, weak and sick. A species full of lifeforms like that would go extinct. Everything about the character life should have been selecting against suicidal or anti-natalist tendencies in a species. Is this merely an arbitrary value claim about life? Yes! But all moral valuations are arbitrary, to the degree that they cannot be demonstrated objectively. The anti-natalist is being just as arbitrary by arguing that life is bad because life involves suffering, by starting from the axiomatic position that suffering is bad and it would be better if no one had to suffer. I could elaborate further, but really it comes down to this point. All the philosophical posturing doesn't change the fact that anti-natalists are simply trying to justify the feeling they have about life. That ever-troublesome ought/is chasm means that no matter how many observations they draw about the dissatisfactory nature of life, they can't ever get to the claim that it ought be otherwise.