/lit/ - Literature

nope it's pretty much irrefutable. except for the fact that it assumes that people not born are nonbeing and not suffering which is fair play. it also assumes that the good bad of life doesn't balance out in our favour. That's true for most people but for the excessively privileged even if they do die horrific deaths and suffer several ailments, the fulfilment and luxury they received may well compensate. ultimately it's up to the individual to determine whether their living is moral

>>2852073

Are you suggesting that good and bad of life is something that can easily be quantified and compared? And how do you compare anything with nonexistence? Better never to have been? Better for who?

>>2852073
>may well compensate.

If hard physical suffering could be monetized, and you could pay to avoid it with tokens from a yacht trip, or orgy with supermodels, how much do you think would be spent of those to, say, avoid ALS or being eaten alive by an alligator?

I think we would find fairly quickly the majority of people would place a much higher value on avoiding suffering than pleasure.

emo bullshit. say yes to life. amor fati.

>>2852095
the first part: no. I said there is suffering that is never compensated and there is suffering that is.

the second part: I made that point that he assumed stuff about nonexistence.


fucking idiot. you think you're arguing with me? wat

>>2852103
pleb version of nietzsche. nice job. now go and get that carpe diem tatoo!

david benatar must be a great personality to interact with

>>2852135
Better than to be friends with someone disguising the flawed nature of existence to chase another cheese curd.

>>2852142
Would Benatar say cheese curds are bad, do you think?

>>2852145
He would say our need for cheese curds didn't need to exist, just like if you were never introduced to cigarettes you wouldn't have a desire for nicotine.

>>2852135
i get the impression this is only an intellectual exercise. im pretty sure he has kids despite the apparent antinatalism

>>2852204
but that's just setting aside the reality of the situation, which is that both ourselves and cheesecurds exist. "In an ideal world, we wouldn't exist." Well thanks a lot Benatar, but I'm hungry.

Is he Pat Benatar's brother?

Does he share his sister's opinion that love is a battlefield?

>>2852228

He's not dealing with you or your present needs. He's just saying don't make any more of you. Now that you're here, it doesn't really matter. You get the roughly 3 score years of suffering like everyone else and then you die.

>>2852228
he doesn't argue against living. it's just an argument for suicide. it's the argument that we would be better off had we never existed in the first place. it's a good point when you consider the negatives of morality but then you've also got to understand that the positive things only apply to living existing things as well. so you can't say there's anything positive about not existing. the most you can say is there is no negative.

>>2852238
I feel it's just another argument where there's nothing backing it up. What if nonexistence is worse than life? Can't prove it is, can't prove it isn't.

But then you have cheesecurds, which taste good. Evidently there are no cheesecurds in nonexistence, so isn't existence inherently better than nonexistence?

You could say that joy is meaningless, but then who are you to deprive others of that experience?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar
>However, he offers a qualified defense of corporal punishment of children and deems the circumcision of male infants a matter for parental discretion.

>>2852242
well exactly the main contention is that ethics can only be applied to existence, not nonexistence. but still it's an interesting philosophical exercise and the only assumption it rests on is that that nonexistence isn't something, which isn't too great a leap.

>>2852056
>That cover

torrent it bro. s'what I did. haven't read it yet though so can't answer you're question.

>>2852262
your*
fml

>>2852238
http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/443653

Doesn't sound like he's bringing up any issues that weren't already solved by Eastern philosophy a long-ass time ago.

>>2852260
>that cover
download link now please

>>2852458
were you born retarded, or did you have to work on it?

>>2852056
>that cover
>>2852260
>that face

>>2852272
Eastern philosophy is antinatalist?

>>2852242
the question is what are your cheesecurds and other addictions worth for the price of admission? Is it worth 9 lion cubs dying out of every 10? Is it worth the percentage of people with ALS or being burned alive? Was your fucking orgasm worth a holocaust? The spill and waste of suffering is too great to perpetuate your silly desires, bitch.

>>2852493
But by having knowledge and a wish to reduce waste and suffering, you would only be promoting suffering by ending yourself or future people who could hypothetically reduce waste and suffering. More suffering may come from your lack of offspring than from the presence of them, and I'm not willing to take that chance.

Now if only I could find a loving wife.

>>2852493
>The spill and waste of suffering is too great to perpetuate your silly desires, bitch.

Is it?

somebody post link.

Also, fuck off. Holocaust, inquisition, chernobyl and all the shit you want, a child's smile as his mother kisses him goodnight is worth all of it.

>>2852513
Reported.

To the Jewish Defense League.

>>2852513
> his mother kisses him goodnight is worth all of it.

the same cunt who imposed her will with a biological experiment with this baby who gave no consent to be born? this mother is gambling with the baby's welfare and life and she has no insurance if her son or daughter has to spend 12 years of her life in an institution with alzhiemers, but I guess it's worth it because she wanted it right? Idiot. It's easy for you to say it's worth it, you should be the one that has to pay the price for the roller coaster then, and get the nastiest shit done to you, and in the moment say if it's worth it.

>>2852510
And all the suffering that's already happened, the people who have died and don't get a second chance, that waste is just some food for thought for you? Exactly how much higher does the collateral need to get you sick bastard?

Also newsflash: It's only a minority of idiots who breed compared to the general population, and I'd like to hear how many of them even have a logical mission statement past "I want" before forcing existence on someone.

>>2852530
>this mother is gambling with the baby's welfare and life
>life must be important
>insurance is nice to have
>life must be important
>people who have died already don't get a second chance
>life must be important

You've defeated your own argument. If life is so terrible, there should be no qualms from anyone about ending it for everyone.

For the living, life is better than death.
For the dead, death is better than life could ever be.

Now grow up, you ninnies.

>Implying you can cause harm to what isn't

"How do I fucking subject and object??? lol xD" -- Benatar

>>2852549
The capacity to suffer is what's important retard. The fact that sentience is a precious commodity that can be abused, of course life is important, and it shouldn't be wasted in the flawed dynamic of this game that is subservient to risk and ultimately empty desires.

Again, fuckface, refute this comment:
>>2852098

Suffering is a greater value than pleasure and subjective wants and needs.

And just how I value suffering, you also don't see people lamenting how there's no fucking martians. The only reason we are bigoted to continuing this game is because its us, not that life itself is important and worth the spill of suffering. Fuck life for abusing sentience, how do you like that dickface?

>>2852609
Refuting your comment:
Even an ALS sufferer or someone eaten by an alligator (presuming they were capable of speaking) would acknowledge that, despite their suffering, life for others may not be so bad. May even be quite nice.

>Suffering is a greater value than pleasure and subjective wants and needs.

whoa whoa whoa, since when did you or Benatar become the arbiter of value in human existence? If you looked outside yourself for even half a moment, you might consider how utterly bankrupt your argument is. All I'm seeing from you now is "Human life is suffering. Suffering is bad, so preventing human life prevents suffering." But you forget, very evidently, that there are parts of human life that aren't suffering.

>>2852626
> life for others may not be so bad. May even be quite nice.

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH MY COMMENT? The point is those potential sufferers would most likely pay away their vacation trips or orgies in exchange for avoiding hard suffering! Under this supposition, we see a clear example of how the value of suffering is of a greater imperative to AVOID, than SEEKING pleasure, you slow-witted erroneous monkey.

Now consider that as you re-read the second half of your retarded response to me.

>>2852609
>one person suffers

>end humanity

O-o-okay...

>>2852637
>as you can well see, under my poorly constructed analogy which is irrelevant to real world propositions...

But I'll humor you. Are you so sure an ALS sufferer, presuming he were a billionaire or generally a successful human being in another portion of his life, would trade his success away in order to get rid of his ALS?

>>2852642
>one

Wild retard alert, danger danger.

>>2852656
It was a very simple premise and you failed to even understand the clearly put meaning of. You have already revoked your license to characterize anything as "poorly contructed" with those logic "skills".

>Irrelevant

How is it irrelevant you stupid shit? Because you can't literally monetize the suffering and pleasure to barter? Well yeah, good catch, except it's all recognizably true that we would rather avoid hard suffering than seek momentary pleasures. The question needs to be asked: Are you implying there's a pleasure out there, some holy grail, that outweighs the incessant brutal cannibalism of animals, or all the dead maimed soldiers of the past? All the future terminally ill cancer patients? Tell me what cheetos you're eating, PLEASE.

>>2852656
I'd say there's a very good chance he would. Another question: Is it worth to have a successful businessman if it also means having an animal kingdom eating itself alive and children dying of starvation, not directly through his actions but because we keep refilling the quotas for new life?

>>2852689
>we would rather avoid hard suffering than seek momentary pleasures
>blanket statement about humanity that is patently untrue, as is evidenced by humanity's existence despite suffering

>Is it worth [it] to have a successful businessman blah blah pain suffering
>worth
>"worth"

If you'd prefer abrasiveness, you don't know shit about shit, you triple nigger. Get the fuck out of here with your baseless propositions and go back to preschool.

>>2852712
>blanket statement about humanity that is patently untrue
>the majority of people don't reproduce
what?

Put on some loafers and go around the neighborhood asking people if they had a choice between the options I presented what they'd do.

>"worth"
yes dickface, as in the cost of this little game for you to masturbate and have fun while real spills of suffering are involved, the ethical question of whether you should have the right to force it on someone else by reproducing.

>>2852689
You really are a chucklefuck, aren't you? Repeatedly you're forgetting the key component in this equation, which is pleasure. You're acting as if it's totally incosequential, when it's one of the main drivers of biological existence.

I get a cut on my finger. Ouch. Hurts, donut? A guy gets blown up by a landmine. Bigger ouch. Spanish War of Succession. Even bigger ouch. Holocaust. Even bigger ouch. And yet these have pained how many people, ultimately? Of the people pained, how many of them would have preferred to have died?

But wait, let me guess, you're going to say, "those foolish humans, they're just selfish, of course they'd WANT to live, even as others suffer." Well yeah, you thick cunt. It would take a bullet to get through your head.

>>2852721
You still haven't answered why death is superior to life, if the goal is to reduce total suffering. No man's an island (although you must be pretty close). One man's death won't start a chain reaction, and will in fact do nothing to reduce total suffering. Although don't have any qualms about hanging yourself, just don't think you'd be pleasing anyone but the people in this thread.

>>2852727
>You're acting as if it's totally incosequential, when it's one of the main drivers of biological existence.

And you're acting as if when the philosophical argument and value equation is presented, people can't look past being slaves to their DNA to rationally decide whether a car is leaking too much fuel to keep driving?

>And yet these have pained how many people, ultimately? Of the people pained, how many of them would have preferred to have died?

Depends on the severity of their wounds and what was unbearable. How about all the people that weren't just pained but cut short completely, buried alive, died horribly/etc. This collateral is just something that evaporates the moment it happens to you? It shouldn't be a determining factor in the waste that is being generated to continue?

All questions little dipshits like you should start to think about.

>>2852721
>the ethical question of whether you should have the right to force it on someone else by reproducing.

But if I can ensure that my children probably won't suffer much, as most parents in the West can ensure, then what's the problem? The smarter thing to do would prevent births in war-torn and low-income areas.

>>2852743
>Depends on the severity of their wounds and what was unbearable.

So you admit that some wouldn't have preferred to die? I think we're done here.

>>2852743
>another tired metaphor irrelevant to the argument at hand
Spare us, please.

>waste being generated
But you said life has no value, so how is endless suffering any worse than pleasure?

>>2852739
I'm actually glad you asked this because it's important. The entire system has to end, all life completely, people with these ideas who commit suicide achieve nothing only because they know there will be others like them who are forced into this retarded game, just like there have been so many before, and that's just the people who recognize it. This is not to say I or anyone can put a real cog in the system by sticking around, but it's not really an argument for suicide. You're already here, so enjoy yourself, but question what you should impose to the future. Also I'm not sure if you're a Drake equation moron or if you believe without evidence there is other life, but I would just go back to my original comment that we don't miss the Martians, and there's a good chance this planet is going to die very hard anyway.


Better never to have been is better than life, it's an equation for the future that will be.

Not to make this comment even more gigantic but I fear you might say something retarded next like "the unborn have no rights", until they are born etc, which I will just say now is nonsense if there is a more than probable cause to believe they will be born, just like if you made a bomb that was to go off five years from now and obliterate a turtle that hadn't been born yet.

>>2852743
>waste

But let's get real here. At what point is the "waste" too great, and we should just say "fuck it"?

For instance, if someone were to nuke the planet, killing all life except for 10 cooperative people and an endless supply of gruel and oatmeal in a bunker somewhere, would that be a "better" planet (in regards to suffering) than as things are now?

>>2852749
Well of course, where have I said otherwise you dumbshit? Did you even read my comment? I wrote the majority of people would prefer to avoid hard suffering than seek pleasure, what have you refuted?

>>2852745

Please explain how you prevent a child from getting murdered by a serial rapist with 100% certainty. Without committing some other sort of child abuse.

>>2852756
I never said life has no value, I said quite the opposite, reread this post:
>>2852609

Your autism is alarming.

>>2852765
nevermind, got my answer here
>>2852762
I guess

>>2852767
I don't think 100% guarantees of safety are a reasonable expectation, at least not for this universe. That's an unfair proposition at the outset. We could even extend it and say, "death leads to suffering. Nobody should be born, therefore nobody will suffer through the pain of death." It's just an inane argument to make.

>>2852769
So life has value, but we shouldn't create it, because the created entities probably will suffer in varying degrees?

You're fucking bonkers, but I'm glad /lit/ has people like you.

>>2852781
Life itself leads to suffering, just if you think of accidents, diseases, mutilations, etc. I didn't make the comment about the 100 percent thing, not that it's relevant anyway, because it doesn't change that you are gambling with someone else's currency from the outset with no real insurance. You're forcing life for no real good reason but your selfish need.

>>2852784
>because the created entities probably will suffer in varying degrees?

Because it's being squandered to chase biological addictions that don't need to exist, for no real purpose, at the expense of the risk of great suffering. Remember, this isn't just people but animals with nervous systems and not enough self-awareness to even have a choice.

I could put it better and have in earlier comments but I'm dangling a lot of comments from violently stupid people and it has taken a toll on my concentration.

>>2852785
Which is better, to gamble with someone else's currency or to never have that currency exist at all? I'd go with the former, you'd go with the latter.

>>2852794
well there you go again with "purpose" and such. Is there such a circumstance where life could exist and be in a better situation than not living?

>>2852810
So? If purpose is too alarming of an implication just measure it by value equations as you would a vehicle, I have a whole history of preposterous spills of human horror that can never be repaid by having some outlandish "better tomorrow" that opposes our very bare biological constructs of desires and susceptibility to suffering. A better question would be, at least in my view, is what more would it take for you to decide to press a big red button that get rids of everything. How bad would it have to be just for humans (since obviously the incessant animal cannibalism is not enough for you)?

>>2852828
You really didn't answer the question. In addition, your cannibalism is most peoples' delicious steak. Almost everyone's delicious steak, even, and if man, beast, insect and fish alike all feed on eachother to survive, why should we criticize them for reducing their own suffering? Unless you're referring to the .0001% of humans who routinely practice cannibalism, which is a silly thing to do.

>>2852837
and if we want to get further into materialism, wars are fought over resources, wars by ants and humans and birds and plants. This is the only way in which life can function, so is it "unjust" or "bad" to do something that's practically a biological necessity?

>>2852837
I answered your question, I think, by saying the atrocities that have already happened can't be repaid. There are already giant deficits of lives cut short and hard, or long and agonizingly that the future does nothing for. I'm asking you if that collateral means anything to you, as you go forward. You also didn't answer my red button question.

As for animals, if lions had the mental capacity to be as self-aware as us, or at least understood the actual suffering that is caused when they bite into their prey, do you think they would rethink their actions?

>>2852850
>so is it "unjust" or "bad" to do something that's practically a biological necessity?

What makes the biological necessity a right or even practical? We should reveer the DNA? Animal life doesn't have a choice, we do, not much of a point for continuing forward, with enlightenment we should be questioning the crude confines we have more than ever.

if you agree with the book then just kill yourself

optimists 1, pessimists 0

>>2852938
ehh nope, already explained here:
>>2852762

good job, good effort

>>2852762

The unborn have no rights until they are born. It's a fact and to assume otherwise is logically incoherent.
Of course we have to take precautions to ensure that they can enjoy their rights once they are born, but there is no right to remain unborn.

>>2854088
Future people have rights too, so the "unborn" do have rights.

>>2854106
Haha.

>antinatalism

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa

ha!

HA!

>>2852941

That doesn't really explain anything. You say you achieve nothing by killing yourself, but if non-existence is so much better than existence, and you can achieve non-existence through suicide, how is that nothing? Others who feel the same way have the same choice. Saying first that life is full of suffering, and not worth living, then saying that once you're born you may as well stick around and enjoy life, seems a tad contradictory.

>>2852938

wawawawawait! Before he kills himself, he should take a look at this link, it's a pdf copy of the book. I mean, he should at least read it before putting a bullet in his brain, right?

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?uswcr6njgw01ojj

>>2854270
>how is that nothing

because everyone else is still reproducing

>>2854270
the harm of existence is sickness and death. killing yourself is no solution because it intensifies that harm. the solution is never to have been born (too late) and to prevent future people being born.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrxlfvI17oY

>>2854337
Thank you, based anon

>>2854340

Right. And most people still think life is worth living. If you don't, then end it. That is every person's choice to make.

>>2854343

Death is no harm, it's merely the end of your existence. But even if it was, suicide wouldn't intensify the harm, because death is inevitable. It's gonna happen. By making it happen now, you avoid any potential future suffering.

>>2852493
Oh! I misunderstood what was being discussed. I thought it was about how life was meaningless so you might as well kill yourself if you're having a bad day.

Anyway, Buddhism could be said to be long-term antinatalist since everyone is supposed to become enlightened and escape samsara (the cycle of rebirth).

>>2854389
dying is the harm. and of course suicide intensifies it more than not. you may die at the end of your lifespan in pain or relative ease but how can you know at this point? if your death is otherwise going to be painful then you could minimise that pain by inducing death now. but if your death is going to be rather quick and unnoticed then suicide now would only make suffering worse. There's no way to tell.

>>2852109

Pleb Nietzsche is right, this whole philosophy is a consequence of degeneration of instinct. I think some of you read too much, instead of following the impulses of your own minds (pleb Schopenhauer!)

I haven't read the book, only the Wikipedia article on him. Having said that... I do not like what I know of him or agree with the idea of...sorry, trying to type this with a straight face, but...."antinatalism"? Seriously? How can you even type that without laughing? Way too much time on his hands....

>>2854452

"Life is pain, and therefore no new children should be born!"
"Hmmm... well I guess we should make sure that the children who are already born suffer as little as possible then?"
"Nah, let's beat them and mutilate their genitals."

>>2854462
There's a place in hell for him next to Valerie Solanis

>Can anyone recommend/criticize?
Better never to have read.

Ethical nihilism

/thread

>>2854452
science tries to tell us the purpose of existence is to reproduce, but it is simply not true. I welcome any attempt to undermine that.

but it's great that you actually took time to consider it and revise your counterargument. it would be humiliating for if you all you tried to do with laugh dismissively.

lol at people thinking this is some angsty teenage proposal and dismissing it only because it's unorthodox

stay insecure, conservafags

>>2854452
Majority of people don't reproduce, what's got you chuckling so much? That the minority that do somehow are the most logical? How many people who have kids even have a real purpose other than just having some ambiguous selfish desire?

>>2854519

>science tries to tell us the purpose of existence is to reproduce

science told you that, huh?

>>2854526
but science i mean it's human proponents and yes too many of them actually believe that. you just have to ask the most people why they live and chances are they will respond with: to continue the human race. it sound slike a worthy response because it's traditional and acceptable. but it's poorly inspired.

>>2854523

>Majority of people don't reproduce

obvious lie is obvious.

>>2854534
Are you kidding?

>>2854536

no, i'm not. are you saying that most people choose not to have children?

>>2854545
preferences are one thing. you could never know that.

but most people do not end up reproducing.

>>2854546

you were talking about who are most logical, people who reproduce, or those who don't (implying that the people in the minority were unlikely to be the most logical, simply because they were the minority, which is a fallacy, but whatever). this only makes sense if we are talking about preference. and this is what I do know: most people who have the opportunity to have children do so.

>>2854556
okay 1. that was a different person and 2. they never implied that link. you and the rest of your kind do seem to conclude rationality from typical motivations which just doesn't follow.

>>2854565

i'm not concluding anything, i'm simply stating a fact: most people who have the opportunity to have children do so. why talk about people who are somehow unable to procreate? what is the relevance?

>>2854577
>most people who have the opportunity to have children do so

but that doesn't say anything about it being right.

>why talk about people who are somehow unable to procreate?

why talk about people who are willing and do procreate?

>>2854594

The question was basically who are the most logical: the majority that does not procreate, or the minority that does? I simply pointed out that when you only consider those that actually have a choice in the matter, it is the majority that does procreate, and the minority that does not. that is all.

>>2854630
No it isn't. You're pretty dumb.

>>>/sci/