My path is sad. The waving sea of the future
Promises me only toil and sorrow.
But O my friends I do not wish to die,
I want to live - to think and suffer... — mcdoodle

I've toyed with this idea before. That life, or perhaps consciousness, is a good thing regardless of what is experienced.

I don't think it's a very defensible position. Nobody wants to suffer, and if they do, well, they aren't suffering. I don't think a romanticism of suffering accurately portrays what suffering is like. Or at least suffering without any meaning.

I've toyed with this idea before. That life, or perhaps consciousness, is a good thing regardless of what is experienced.

I don't think it's a very defensible position. Nobody wants to suffer, and if they do, well, they aren't suffering. I don't think a romanticism of suffering accurately portrays what suffering is like. Or at least suffering without any meaning. — darthbarracuda

Nobody wants relentless pleasure, come to that. I was just putting the Pushkin point of view. I feel many people commit themselves to a life which partly consists of suffering, because other purposes and feelings are in their sights - they suffer for their family, for their children, for others, because endurance will they believe lead to a better life, because it's the price of the good stuff, because somebody has to shovel the shit, because they're penitent...

Life has no moral worth period, so the question is incoherent and unanswerable.

You can rephrase the question. Having been born, should we, or should we not, kill ourselves?

I still see a "should," so you haven't gotten rid of what I object to.

ok, frame it another way, less universal and less categorical. young person who Oh Shit! has realized the world is v fucked up and there's a whole bundle of suffering ahead. What advice would you, person responding to the OP, give that person in terms of suicide v sticking it out?

Apologies, but there is no advice to give, for there is no duty to live nor one to die that the young person could fulfill.

Strange answer. One can only give advice about things pertaining to duty? A friend once gave me the advice that I shouldn't buy European cars, with my salary, since the upkeep is steep. It was good advice, but I can't for the life of me see what it has to do with duty.

It probably was good advice. My lack of knowledge about European cars would have disabled me from giving it, just as it disables me from giving it about whether another person should continue living or kill himself. Life is not the sort of thing that has any intrinsic worth, so how could I possibly decide which option is best? If I knew of some duty to live or die, then I would be in a position to offer advice, but I don't.

Ok, that makes sense, you can't know enough about the life of the person seeking advice in order to sway him one way or the other. There's a good chance, he'll have a good run of it, and enjoy the remainder of his days etc.

Being convinced that life is neither worth continuing nor worth ending, you will notice, practically results in continuing to live. It would be the same were I dead and deciding the merits of continuing to be dead or becoming alive. If I am convinced of neither, then I will by default continue being dead, or "deading" to coin a word.

There's a good chance, he'll have a good run of it, and enjoy the remainder of his days etc. — csalisbury

This would be unwarranted.

Being convinced that life is neither worth continuing nor worth ending, you will notice, practically results in continuing to live.

Sure, and if you've continued to live, no one has any reason to listen to any claims you might make that life's not worth continuing to live, because they're gibberish.

It would be the same were I dead and deciding the merits of continuing to be dead or becoming alive. If I am convinced of neither, then I will by default continue being dead, or "deading" to coin a word.

This analogy's fun but its 100% meaningless.

There's a good chance, he'll have a good run of it, and enjoy the remainder of his days etc.
— csalisbury

This would be unwarranted.

Fair. So maybe you think there's very little chance he or she will experience anything but an abundance of sorrow. Still, no advice one way or the other. Huh.

any claims you might make that life's not worth continuing to live, because they're gibberish. — csalisbury

My claims are gibberish? I've made no claims to such an effect in the first place. That's my whole point, apparently lost on you. I can't give advice about what is non-advisable.

should have said 'one' not 'you', sry, wasnt trying to ascribe to you any claims

Ah, good to hear.

Can I say something?

Nonexistence -> Existence (birth of I) -> Pain

Stage 1: Nonexistence
Stage 2: Existence (birth of the I)
Stage 3: Pain

The sequence of events that concerns the antinatalist is as above. An antinatslist wants to stop this chain of events at stage 1 precisely because s/he doesn't want stage 2 because it inevitably leads to stage 3.

It's obvious that if it's bad to be born then it's good to commit suicide..

However, committing suicide isn't as easy as one would like. We have to overcome a strong primordial instinct, that of self-preservation. This fact (self-preservation) is exactly what the antinatalist wishes to avoid by not being born. The antinatalist knows that life is pain and suicide is the right choice but can't be done because of the instinct of self-preservation.

What's the best option?

Don't be born.

Though it sounds cowardly, it's like refusing to go to battle (not be born) against an enemy (self-preservation and the suffering of life) you know you can't defeat. Once you're born you have to live with it but you can decide not to have children. Who said "discretion is the better part of valor"?

So, the criticism that antinatalists should commit suicide doesn't hold water.