Philosophy Now Forum

alpha wrote:what happened to the convertible?

Lol...I traded it in for what I really wanted...however, I have to admit...it was fun too!

It's a harm because it ends life, which is rarely 100% bad. It is at least partially good, and what ends goods is harmful; death ends those goods, therefore death is a harm.

Not to the good, though. Nothing harms the good.

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/boo ... fectation/
aN OUTSTANDING ESSAY ON ETHICS AND POSTMODERNISM.

It's all a matter of perspective!

From the universe's, it surely seems that there is no such thing as either harm or harmlessness. Unless of course it's understood one day that the universe is somehow purposeful, that it has intended that which has come to pass, that is life.

From my perspective, just like that of my belief as to either the possibility of the universe intending or not intending the things that have come to pass, I'm agnostic, as I can see value on both sides of the question. As to the potential that life offers, I see harm in death, but at the same time, as to the actual current results that life has shown me, I see death as harmless, actually preferred. The human experiment, 'so far,' has been largely flawed, led by far too much fear, and as a result, selfishness and greed. So as it stands, it's a good thing that the human species is surely manifesting it's destruction, as currently it surely deserves nothing less, than to die at it's own selfish greedy hands; poetic justice!

Of course I hope, mankind actually finally evolves into that animal that justifies my seeing death as harm; that day that he truly deserves to be called the keeper of the biosphere, when he actually has spheres that truly balance, truly fearless, selfless, and all giving, finally seeing the life, despite himself, relative to this universal crowning achievement, that is life on planet earth, the symbiotic biosphere that it actually is.

So I remain hopeful despite the evidence that mankind has presented.

Happy Holidays, to all those that wish to celebrate, whatever they wish to celebrate, in the purest sense of course.


Unless of course there's a far better species

Encolpio wrote:David Benatar in “Better never to have been” says that every life is not worth starting, because human lives are so ridden with harm, even the best ones, that is preferable not to be over coming into existence in a world of suffering.

He then maintains that it is preferable not to procreate anyone, and, if a woman happens to get pregnant, we should take on a “pro-death” stance, which means that we should defend the right not to abort, abortion (or means that prevent conception) being the preferable, “normal” case. This somehow reverses the view of pro-choice activists, who in the end support life while advocating women’s right not to carry a child to term.

He says that after he (in my view successfully) demonstrated that even the happiest lives are in fact very bad, and life is full of suffering. However, what strikes me as contradictory is that he says that coming to existence is also very bad because you cannot avoid death and one cannot live as long as one desires.

Now, since human life – and the conscious lives of any other animals for that matter – is equalled to a harm, how could it be that death qualifies as a harm, as it can be defined as the (irreversible) cessation of a harm? I cannot see how the two stances hold together: either life is an unmitigated harm or death is. If death occurs to end something which is defined as a harm, now that’s a good.

Death and suicide are bad things, that’s for sure, but in my view that is true not because they shorten life – which I believe is a harm, as Benatar maintains –, but because they cause pain to our surviving loved ones. They’re not bad in themselves, then, but only relative to their consequences for the people (friends, spouse/partner, relatives, etc.) that have to go through the experience our demise.

I came upon the text below in my reading. It contradicts Professor Benatar's thesis. Do you think it applies to Benatar? Do you think he enjoys Mozart at the symphony? If so, do you think that the total amount of his pleasures exceed the total amount of his sufferings each day? If so, how does this result affect his thesis?

"Nothing is more widespread among men than the certitude of the all-importance of existence: as the saying goes, a living dog is better than a dead king. But we also know that, what they know as men, philosophers are liable to forget as philosophers, ..." p. 45
http://www.amazon.com/Being-Some-Philos ... ilosophers

Encolpio wrote:David Benatar in “Better never to have been” says that every life is not worth starting, because human lives are so ridden with harm, even the best ones, that is preferable not to be over coming into existence in a world of suffering.

He then maintains that it is preferable not to procreate anyone, and, if a woman happens to get pregnant, we should take on a “pro-death” stance, which means that we should defend the right not to abort, abortion (or means that prevent conception) being the preferable, “normal” case. This somehow reverses the view of pro-choice activists, who in the end support life while advocating women’s right not to carry a child to term.

He says that after he (in my view successfully) demonstrated that even the happiest lives are in fact very bad, and life is full of suffering. However, what strikes me as contradictory is that he says that coming to existence is also very bad because you cannot avoid death and one cannot live as long as one desires.

Now, since human life – and the conscious lives of any other animals for that matter – is equalled to a harm, how could it be that death qualifies as a harm, as it can be defined as the (irreversible) cessation of a harm? I cannot see how the two stances hold together: either life is an unmitigated harm or death is. If death occurs to end something which is defined as a harm, now that’s a good.

Death and suicide are bad things, that’s for sure, but in my view that is true not because they shorten life – which I believe is a harm, as Benatar maintains –, but because they cause pain to our surviving loved ones. They’re not bad in themselves, then, but only relative to their consequences for the people (friends, spouse/partner, relatives, etc.) that have to go through the experience our demise.

at birth we start dying, so death should be the opposite. I believe it is.

people's lives is ridden with harm mainly because they cannot figure out the meaning and purpose of life, and as result believe in darwinism which doesnt apply humans. If people regard each other like animals while they are not, they create an inner fragmentation that is irreconcilable with the awareness/consciousness they are born with... so they suffer. They suffer from cosmic or metaphysical abandonment, feeling lost in the Universe in other words, and this has consequences because they try to make it up with material security which further increases the disconnect with the Whole.

Mans meaning is meaningless. In fact we just are. It's mans meaning that divides us, as it allows for any nut-bag view, so that they then try and ensure it, by imposing it upon others.

Just exist, being happy that you do, or don't exist, because you're not happy that you do, take your pick. Either way, it's just for you! There is no universal handbook, authored by the universe. Universally, neither life nor death is harm, they are both human constructs, and as such are meaningless, to all but those of us that believe otherwise. Take 'your' matters into 'your' own hands, as in 'fact' they only matter to 'you.'

I believe in live and let live, as long as we all keep our version of living to ourselves. Likewise we should die and let die, as it is in fact each of our deaths, and no one else's!

Meaning is like opinions and assholes, because everyone has their own.

My meaning is contained within the universe that caused me to exist, yet I don't need to know what it is for me to exist. All I need to know is that I do exist, and the rules of existence, that's it!

Meaning: the crazy human construct!

Encolpio wrote:David Benatar in “Better never to have been” says that every life is not worth starting, because human lives are so ridden with harm, even the best ones, that is preferable not to be over coming into existence in a world of suffering.

He then maintains that it is preferable not to procreate anyone, and, if a woman happens to get pregnant, we should take on a “pro-death” stance, which means that we should defend the right not to abort, abortion (or means that prevent conception) being the preferable, “normal” case. This somehow reverses the view of pro-choice activists, who in the end support life while advocating women’s right not to carry a child to term.

He says that after he (in my view successfully) demonstrated that even the happiest lives are in fact very bad, and life is full of suffering. However, what strikes me as contradictory is that he says that coming to existence is also very bad because you cannot avoid death and one cannot live as long as one desires.

Now, since human life – and the conscious lives of any other animals for that matter – is equalled to a harm, how could it be that death qualifies as a harm, as it can be defined as the (irreversible) cessation of a harm? I cannot see how the two stances hold together: either life is an unmitigated harm or death is. If death occurs to end something which is defined as a harm, now that’s a good.

Death and suicide are bad things, that’s for sure, but in my view that is true not because they shorten life – which I believe is a harm, as Benatar maintains –, but because they cause pain to our surviving loved ones. They’re not bad in themselves, then, but only relative to their consequences for the people (friends, spouse/partner, relatives, etc.) that have to go through the experience our demise.

I sort of agree (at least sometimes) that it is maybe better to have never been. Had we never been, then we would not experience suffering and wouldn't have to deal with the prospect of death (and possibly oblivion); always immanent somewhere on our horizons. However, the very fact that death is terrifying to most of us, I think says something about the true value we place on life. Life is not all bad.

I remember when I was younger suffering a great deal of depression and angst mostly because of an inability to connect with females. I'm on anti-depressants now and don't have the same angst anymore. Life is much better for me on anti-depressants. In fact I would venture to say I don't really suffer anymore. Even when my life is a mess and things aren't going my way I still feel pretty good on the pills. Life is good on pills, death is bad. Maybe it would have been somehow better to have never been born but that option is now an impossibility. So I sort of think of it as a moot point.

I doubt I will ever have children and really don't want any and I think that is the right decision for me. It may not be the right decision for everyone, though. I don't know.

EDIT: Saw some other discussion and would like to add: Most definitely YES. Death is a harm.

Gary Childress wrote:

Encolpio wrote:David Benatar in “Better never to have been” says that every life is not worth starting, because human lives are so ridden with harm, even the best ones, that is preferable not to be over coming into existence in a world of suffering.

He then maintains that it is preferable not to procreate anyone, and, if a woman happens to get pregnant, we should take on a “pro-death” stance, which means that we should defend the right not to abort, abortion (or means that prevent conception) being the preferable, “normal” case. This somehow reverses the view of pro-choice activists, who in the end support life while advocating women’s right not to carry a child to term.

He says that after he (in my view successfully) demonstrated that even the happiest lives are in fact very bad, and life is full of suffering. However, what strikes me as contradictory is that he says that coming to existence is also very bad because you cannot avoid death and one cannot live as long as one desires.

Now, since human life – and the conscious lives of any other animals for that matter – is equalled to a harm, how could it be that death qualifies as a harm, as it can be defined as the (irreversible) cessation of a harm? I cannot see how the two stances hold together: either life is an unmitigated harm or death is. If death occurs to end something which is defined as a harm, now that’s a good.

Death and suicide are bad things, that’s for sure, but in my view that is true not because they shorten life – which I believe is a harm, as Benatar maintains –, but because they cause pain to our surviving loved ones. They’re not bad in themselves, then, but only relative to their consequences for the people (friends, spouse/partner, relatives, etc.) that have to go through the experience our demise.

I sort of agree (at least sometimes) that it is maybe better to have never been. Had we never been, then we would not experience suffering and wouldn't have to deal with the prospect of death (and possibly oblivion); always immanent somewhere on our horizons. However, the very fact that death is terrifying to most of us, I think says something about the true value we place on life. Life is not all bad.

I remember when I was younger suffering a great deal of depression and angst mostly because of an inability to connect with females. I'm on anti-depressants now and don't have the same angst anymore. Life is much better for me on anti-depressants. In fact I would venture to say I don't really suffer anymore. Even when my life is a mess and things aren't going my way I still feel pretty good on the pills. Life is good on pills, death is bad. Maybe it would have been somehow better to have never been born but that option is now an impossibility. So I sort of think of it as a moot point.

I doubt I will ever have children and really don't want any and I think that is the right decision for me. It may not be the right decision for everyone, though. I don't know.

EDIT: Saw some other discussion and would like to add: Most definitely YES. Death is a harm.

Death is not harm, it's final!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Encolpio wrote:David Benatar in “Better never to have been” says that every life is not worth starting, because human lives are so ridden with harm, even the best ones, that is preferable not to be over coming into existence in a world of suffering.

He then maintains that it is preferable not to procreate anyone, and, if a woman happens to get pregnant, we should take on a “pro-death” stance, which means that we should defend the right not to abort, abortion (or means that prevent conception) being the preferable, “normal” case. This somehow reverses the view of pro-choice activists, who in the end support life while advocating women’s right not to carry a child to term.

He says that after he (in my view successfully) demonstrated that even the happiest lives are in fact very bad, and life is full of suffering. However, what strikes me as contradictory is that he says that coming to existence is also very bad because you cannot avoid death and one cannot live as long as one desires.

Now, since human life – and the conscious lives of any other animals for that matter – is equalled to a harm, how could it be that death qualifies as a harm, as it can be defined as the (irreversible) cessation of a harm? I cannot see how the two stances hold together: either life is an unmitigated harm or death is. If death occurs to end something which is defined as a harm, now that’s a good.

Death and suicide are bad things, that’s for sure, but in my view that is true not because they shorten life – which I believe is a harm, as Benatar maintains –, but because they cause pain to our surviving loved ones. They’re not bad in themselves, then, but only relative to their consequences for the people (friends, spouse/partner, relatives, etc.) that have to go through the experience our demise.

I sort of agree (at least sometimes) that it is maybe better to have never been. Had we never been, then we would not experience suffering and wouldn't have to deal with the prospect of death (and possibly oblivion); always immanent somewhere on our horizons. However, the very fact that death is terrifying to most of us, I think says something about the true value we place on life. Life is not all bad.

I remember when I was younger suffering a great deal of depression and angst mostly because of an inability to connect with females. I'm on anti-depressants now and don't have the same angst anymore. Life is much better for me on anti-depressants. In fact I would venture to say I don't really suffer anymore. Even when my life is a mess and things aren't going my way I still feel pretty good on the pills. Life is good on pills, death is bad. Maybe it would have been somehow better to have never been born but that option is now an impossibility. So I sort of think of it as a moot point.

I doubt I will ever have children and really don't want any and I think that is the right decision for me. It may not be the right decision for everyone, though. I don't know.

EDIT: Saw some other discussion and would like to add: Most definitely YES. Death is a harm.

Death is not harm, it's final!

If death is not a harm, would that imply that if I were to kill someone I am not doing them any harm and therefore have committed no crime against them?

Encolpio wrote:David Benatar in “Better never to have been” says that every life is not worth starting, because human lives are so ridden with harm, even the best ones, that is preferable not to be over coming into existence in a world of suffering.

He then maintains that it is preferable not to procreate anyone, and, if a woman happens to get pregnant, we should take on a “pro-death” stance, which means that we should defend the right not to abort, abortion (or means that prevent conception) being the preferable, “normal” case. This somehow reverses the view of pro-choice activists, who in the end support life while advocating women’s right not to carry a child to term.

He says that after he (in my view successfully) demonstrated that even the happiest lives are in fact very bad, and life is full of suffering. However, what strikes me as contradictory is that he says that coming to existence is also very bad because you cannot avoid death and one cannot live as long as one desires.

Now, since human life – and the conscious lives of any other animals for that matter – is equalled to a harm, how could it be that death qualifies as a harm, as it can be defined as the (irreversible) cessation of a harm? I cannot see how the two stances hold together: either life is an unmitigated harm or death is. If death occurs to end something which is defined as a harm, now that’s a good.

Death and suicide are bad things, that’s for sure, but in my view that is true not because they shorten life – which I believe is a harm, as Benatar maintains –, but because they cause pain to our surviving loved ones. They’re not bad in themselves, then, but only relative to their consequences for the people (friends, spouse/partner, relatives, etc.) that have to go through the experience our demise.

Gary Childress wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:
I sort of agree (at least sometimes) that it is maybe better to have never been. Had we never been, then we would not experience suffering and wouldn't have to deal with the prospect of death (and possibly oblivion); always immanent somewhere on our horizons. However, the very fact that death is terrifying to most of us, I think says something about the true value we place on life. Life is not all bad.

I remember when I was younger suffering a great deal of depression and angst mostly because of an inability to connect with females. I'm on anti-depressants now and don't have the same angst anymore. Life is much better for me on anti-depressants. In fact I would venture to say I don't really suffer anymore. Even when my life is a mess and things aren't going my way I still feel pretty good on the pills. Life is good on pills, death is bad. Maybe it would have been somehow better to have never been born but that option is now an impossibility. So I sort of think of it as a moot point.

I doubt I will ever have children and really don't want any and I think that is the right decision for me. It may not be the right decision for everyone, though. I don't know.

EDIT: Saw some other discussion and would like to add: Most definitely YES. Death is a harm.

Death is not harm, it's final!

If death is not a harm, would that imply that if I were to kill someone I am not doing them any harm and therefore have committed no crime against them?

Good question.

To my mind there is a distinction, between death in and of it self, and murdering someone.

For example many don't see tattoos as harm, if done correctly, and placed in a preferred location, and they aren't, at least physically. Though some might argue that they do harm aesthetically, hence the tattoo-e's location designation. But since I personally don't care for them, if someone came up to me, slipped me a mickey and tattooed my face in bold red, "Please tattoo my face, I'm an idiot," well that's definitely harmful, at least from my perspective.

So I would argue that death is the natural conclusion to life, yet it's not, as the constituents that made up my body return to the earth from whence they came, to be used by the next life. That's the cycle. I'm sitting here drinking water that might have been Da Vinci's urine or maybe Genghis Kahn's. And so it shall go through the cycle again. Maybe one day dinosaurs plus, the next species, my remains, iron, aluminum, H2O, etc, might be added to their creation.

Death itself is not a harm, though the act of dying, a long drawn out extremely painful inevitable death due to incurable decease, would probably be considered by most to be a harm. Luckily we have euthanasia to turn to. In other words, a quick and painless death. Drugs would be my preference. Starting off with something mind (consciousness) expanding, and ending with probably a heroin overdose, just fall off to sleep, and end my seemingly never ending painful life.

To die naturally when ones time is up, or when they want to, is not harm, but to steal anything, especially ones life, to the one it's stolen from, is definitely harm. And I think 'most' would agree with me. Murder and dying is harm, while death in and of itself, is not.

I see that the OP and the writer of the book he references, have harm confused with their selfishness. It is true that today relative to yesteryear we are a bunch of me, me, me, I want more, more, more, kind of beings. So I guess if we can't have things our own selfish way so as to live forever, we'll call it harm. I guess parents are harming their children when they 'make' them eat their vegetables, right? Further I see that anything that is part of nature, caused by the nature of the universe, can never really be considered a harm. At least to a sane mind.

As I age, I see that I haven't endured as much suffering (harm), as I have life lessons, though some might call them suffering (harm), they've definitely served my purpose, which is to experience/learn the truth of the universe, thus myself and humankind! I do enjoy quite a few things, and find them worth the life lessons. The primary thing I enjoy is nature, in all it's diversity, that which I'm a part of. To this day I look around me, finding myself in awe of what this universe is, and it feels good to experience the awe. In my mind it kind of makes us special, the complexity that is the universe.

So how do you see it?

Nah, son. The enlightened see it as a blessing.

Jaded Sage wrote:Nah, son. The enlightened see it as a blessing.

I agree JS, those that believe otherwise are simply confusing their life's lessons with it's meaning, when in fact if they paid attention to the lessons, though sometimes rather harsh, it's meaning might float to the top.

Of course my heart goes out to all those that have experienced an extremely hard lesson to follow, (birth defects among them). As Elton John sang: "love lies bleeding in my hands!"

I literally JUST NOW realized that perfect ataraxia (epicurean tranquility) is really only achievable in death, which I believe the Buddha called Final Nirvana. So that's cool.

Jaded Sage wrote:I literally JUST NOW realized that perfect ataraxia (epicurean tranquility) is really only achievable in death, which I believe the Buddha called Final Nirvana. So that's cool.

Rubbish.
There is no lucidity in death. There is nothing in death.