Darkneos wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 6:03 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 5:57 pm
Darkneos wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 5:02 pm
To me arguments for staying alive or for meaning only work if you HAVE to live. Filling life with good things, doing what you love, all that junk only has logical weight if one is unable to die until a set time. Baring that I see no reason for living. Desire for pleasures only applies if you are alive, if you die there is no need for any of that. Same with love, friendship, food, money, etc.
Logic is only good for certain tasks, primarily related to maintaining consistency between the various things we consider to be facts and the things we consider inviolable principles.
But I don't think there's any combination of those things that works to require us to choose life for any particular reason. It's either one of the basic assumptions we hold before we start doing logic, or it's arbitrary. It's not something to be discovered via logic.
Maybe. I guess since it’s a want logic doesn’t really work out here. Just because someone doesn’t want to keep living doesn’t really make it logical to just die.
Maybe the concept of wanting something still eludes me. In my mind if I don’t have to do something then I don’t do it. The concept of want to me feels weaker than a need.
Hume asked a similar question once and came up with "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." We need to care about a thing in some way or another before we can begin to reason about it, at the very least we must want to know something about it.
I take no position on antinatalism because I don't give a rat's arse about it, but I think those guys argue that never being born in the first place is preferable in some circumstances to life or death. I'm probably misrepresenting them - but it's questionable whether I care enough to find out - but let's say that's true enough for now. That places you and I in the position where we have moved beyond the point where we had the option of never having passions and never needing reason.
I guess the default position then would be that reason will give us some of what we want, some of the time, as long as we are around to want stuff, and we've started that so we are in the process already. But it would be fairly easy to reach a situation where as an individual I would reason that my time was up. Perhaps I would do so bravely on the basis that terrorists are threatening to blow up my favourite park bench, and so fearlessly I would of course leap into action and get blown to pieces with it. Or perhaps I would just do something with sleeping pills instead of wait for cancer of the anus to do it's dreadful thing to my previously trouble free rear quarters.
What I imagine would not be possible would would be any categorical position on the matter. Life is mostly a set of circumstances where I wouldn't choose death were I in that person's place. Every now and then it's the other way round. So I don't see much scope for a universal argument either that all moral agents should never top themselves ... or the somewhat darker one that all moral agents should kill themselves today.
But I leave the door open for the antinatalist position that life can be quite annoying sometimes, so better not to make babies. Or as Plato put it: Always do your wife up the arse.