• schopenhauer1
    2.3k

    So you are describing a non human situation? Is it relevant?
  • TheHedoMinimalist
    47

    It is relevant if you are arguing that "life is always suffering due to the deprivation of desires and wants which are endless." That is because you are implying that the fact that something is a deprivation makes it bad even if no one experiences negative mental states because of that deprivation. In addition, the deprivation seems to be infinitely bad on your view. That is because under your definition of deprivation, you don't even have to desire the thing you are supposedly deprived of, in order to be harmfully deprived. My question goes as follows: is it the case that, even if there's no one experiencing negative emotion or having desires violated because of an absence of pleasure, an absence of pleasure in a being could still be called a deprivation and the presence of that deprivation in a being is still a bad thing? Is the mere fact that it could be called a deprivation make the supposed outcome bad and why?
  • schopenhauer1
    2.3k
    My question goes as follows: is it the case that, even if there's no one experiencing negative emotion or having desires violated because of an absence of pleasure, an absence of pleasure in a being could still be called a deprivation and the presence of that deprivation in a being is still a bad thing? Is the mere fact that it could be called a deprivation make the supposed outcome bad and why?TheHedoMinimalist

    If no negative states were attached to the deprivation then the outcome is not bad. I would just like to see a human with no negative states due to deprivation. Perhaps these are the mystical enlightened ones. Buddhism is based on lessening attachment to desire. Schopenhauer's only salvation was to become an austere ascetic and possibly die due to starvation without care.
  • Terrapin Station
    5.2k


    Again, I don't at all agree that a mere lack of something is sufficient to suggest that we have a moral issue at hand.

    So when we don't agree on that, how do we resolve it?
  • TheHedoMinimalist
    47
    If no negative states were attached to the deprivation then the outcome is not bad. I would just like to see a human with no negative states due to deprivation. Perhaps these are the mystical enlightened ones. Buddhism is based on lessening attachment to desire. Schopenhauer's only salvation was to become an austere ascetic and possibly die due to starvation without care.schopenhauer1

    Ok, so what you just said seems to imply that you don't accept the following implications of accepting Benetar's argument and rejecting P2 of my X being argument:

    1. It means that the harm of coming into existence extends far beyond the presence of bad things. The infinite deprivation of good things in life is also an infinite harm relative to non-existence. For example, there is an infinite amount of pleasure that I am deprived of(because I cannot experience an eternal orgasm, for example) and that is bad only because I am a being who is deprived of that pleasure. This seems highly counterintuitive to me.

    2. It means that bringing a being into existence that can be deprived of some good things in life but is inflicted with no bad things in life would still be harmful. That is because the deprivation of pleasure is bad compared to the case of nonexistence where there's no one deprived and therefore no one harmed by the absence of pleasure. To me, this is even more counterintuitive than thinking that X beings are not worse off than humans by not being able to experience pleasure. It implies that bringing a child into existence is bad even if that child experiences nothing bad but simply doesn't have as many good things in life as she could have.

    Because you think the presence of desire or deprivational suffering is a necessity for something to be called a "deprivation that qualifies as being bad", it cannot be the case that the badness of the deprivation is infinite(since I only have finite desires and experience a finite amount of deprivational suffering from the deprivation, thereby making the badness of the deprivation finite).

    Now I would like to come back to my X Being argument:

    P1: The presence of pleasure in human beings is an advantage over the absence of pleasure in X Beings.

    P2: X Beings cannot be said to be deprived of pleasure because they never had a desire or appreciation for it in the first place. In addition, experiencing pleasure provides no instrumental benefit to them by alleviating deprivational or inflictional suffering. Furthermore, the absence of pleasure is necessary for an X Being to maintain its identity as an X Being(that means if a rare mutation makes a supposed X Being experience pleasure, scientists would reclassify the being as some other species rather than an X Being with good scientific justification)

    C: Therefore, the presence of pleasure can be an advantage over the absence of pleasure even if there is no one for whom the absence is a deprivation.

    Because there has to be some deprivational suffering occurring for the absence of pleasure to be a deprivation or there has to be a desire for pleasure at least, P2 must be true. Although X beings do experience deprivational suffering, the reason they experience it, is not because of an absence of pleasure(that is because they do not derive any pleasure from activities that alleviate their deprivational suffering). They also do not desire pleasure or comprehend the concept of pleasure, so they don't know what they are missing out on. Just like a dog cannot be deprived of intellectual pleasures(because they don't desire any), X beings cannot be deprived of pleasure in general.(because they don't desire or understand pleasure.)
    If you accept that P2 is true, then you would either have to say that P1 is false or reject Benetar's asymmetry. I chose to reject Benetar's asymmetry because I don't think that the presence of desire or deprivational suffering could fully explain why it is bad to have an absence of pleasure.
  • Andrew4Handel
    771
    One argument against a God is that if he exists he must be evil for creating all the suffering in the world or allowing all the suffering including children dying of bone cancer.

    However, even if a God does exist he/she /it is not forcing people to procreate so people are choosing to bring offspring into a world they would condemn a deity for creating.

    I think having a child is endorsing everything that happens in reality as suitable for your child.

    I think both the religious and non religious can use God or Gods as a scapegoat for problems they are actually perpetuating themselves.

    I know that if I create a child I will be responsible for all his or her future suffering and the possibility of grandchildren and further descendants suffering.

    To me it is most brave to confront your own death and see what happens not to try and create some kind of immortality by having children.
  • Noah Te Stroete
    257
    Some people have children by accident. Some people can’t have children. Some people plan children. Some people don’t want children. I don’t think a suffering calculus goes on in the heads of people before engaging in sex. Then there are those who can’t get a sexual partner.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.3k
    If you accept that P2 is true, then you would either have to say that P1 is false or reject Benetar's asymmetry. I chose to reject Benetar's asymmetry because I don't think that the presence of desire or deprivational suffering could fully explain why it is bad to have an absence of pleasure.TheHedoMinimalist

    The X Beings don't experience pleasure or get deprived of it. This is not good or bad. The humans experience pleasure, this is good. The non-existent potential child doesn't experience pleasure or get deprived of it, this is not good or bad.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.3k
    What is GD symbology?Noah Te Stroete

    Grateful Dead
  • Noah Te Stroete
    257
    What is GD symbology?
    — Noah Te Stroete

    Grateful Dead
    schopenhauer1

    Okay. I thought it might be Gangster Disciples! Lol
  • TheHedoMinimalist
    47

    Ok so it sounds to me like you're choosing to reject P1 then. That is to say that you don't think that the presence of pleasure in humans is an advantage over the absence of pleasure in X Beings for the same reason you don't think that the presence of pleasure in humans is an advantage over the absence of pleasure for potential beings.(that is to say that there's no deprivation present in either one of these cases of pleasure absences.) In that case, I guess we will have to agree to disagree since I think rejecting P1 would be more counterintuitive than rejecting Benetar's asymmetry. Feel free to provide me with an argument or a thought experiment for why Benetar's asymmetry is more intuitive than P1 in your opinion if you have one though.
156789Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.