The Goodness of Existence

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by Dontaskme »

withcaremorality wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:45 pm

Benatar is wrong.
I disagree.

Benatar is right.
withcaremorality
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:07 pm

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by withcaremorality »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:48 pm
withcaremorality wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:45 pm

Benatar is wrong.
I disagree.



Benatar is right.
Even a broken clock can be right twice a day. His analysis has some merit, but ultimately, he is wrong. At least, that is what I believe.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by Dontaskme »

withcaremorality wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:17 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:48 pm
withcaremorality wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:45 pm

Benatar is wrong.
I disagree.



Benatar is right.
Even a broken clock can be right twice a day. His analysis has some merit, but ultimately, he is wrong. At least, that is what I believe.
A broken clock can also be wrong 10 times a day.

Benatar is right tenfold more than your belief, which is wrong.
withcaremorality
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:07 pm

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by withcaremorality »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:00 pm
withcaremorality wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:17 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:48 pm
I disagree.



Benatar is right.
Even a broken clock can be right twice a day. His analysis has some merit, but ultimately, he is wrong. At least, that is what I believe.
A broken clock can also be wrong 10 times a day.

Benatar is right tenfold more than your belief, which is wrong.
It's certainly wrong most of the time.

I disagree with the claim that he is right. Of course, it's possible that I am wrong. After all, I have much to learn. Nevertheless, I believe that the probability of universal AN being correct is low. Still, it can undeniably have value in some situations.

Have a good day!
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by Dubious »

What a dumb title! There are very many who would describe their existence as abhorrent. What's the goal of Buddhism if not to be reborn. It's not existence per se that should necessarily be avoided but the circumstances one is born into which many would have found extremely undesirable had they known what awaits them. Comparing that to the deep and traumatic tribulations in so many existences, including that of animals, the Goodness of Existence sounds like a cute little fairy story written for children of kindergarten age.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by popeye1945 »

Dubious,

EXCELLENT!
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by Dontaskme »

Dubious wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:44 am What a dumb title!
Yeah, it's an arbitrary thing to say.

Could just as easily said ..'The Awfulness of Existence'.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by Phil8659 »

Exactly why would anyone even read something by someone who evidently never learnt what an anthropomorphism is in English class.

Secondly, as Plato demonstrated, it is wholly impossible to predicate of existence.
A thing is define by the binary expression of a relative and correlative. Shape, limits, and the analog, the material within limits, one cannot possibly be the other, a noun is not a verb, a point is that which has no part.

A class is not a member of itself.

And if you followed the instructions concerning Parmenides, and learnt the principles of predication, you would not be spewing complete nonsense.
Grammar is not what is politically correct, it is physical defined in the perceptible and intelligibly defined by its image as the intelligible.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Philosophy Now" post_id=568919 time=1650528309 user_id=4541]
Jarlath Cox says whether life brings pleasure or pain, the value of being born is the ability to experience at all.

[url]https://philosophynow.org/issues/149/Th ... _Existence[/url]
[/quote]

The ability to experience without appeal to whether that experience is avoid or approach based is meaningless.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by popeye1945 »

Existence is not good, it just is.
Zserban
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2023 3:53 am

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by Zserban »

I think that a key problem with believing that existence is bad and we shouldn't impose it on new people is that it is just straightforwardly impossible to create a coherent and non-absurd ethic based on that premise. If existence itself is bad, understood generally, then that would imply a moral imperative to destroy and to kill so that the universe reaches heat-death as soon as possible.

Furthermore, if the issue is that we may cause someone to live a life they would not have wanted, by bringing such a person into existence we are creating the possibility of their choice, rather than imposing and thus taking away a choice. We cannot know for sure beforehand whether a given new person will ultimately approve of their lives happening or not, and so we cannot answer for them. Those that choose to depart from existence will soon not have to deal with it, even though ideally they would be brought to a point of appreciating the beauty of being itself independent of their own interest.

Beyond that, of course, is also the issue that this whole argument is based on a hedonistic framework that assumes the intrinsic badness of pain and the intrinsic goodness of pleasure. To me, it is not so obvious and certainly not proven that this is the case. Indeed, from a purely aesthetic point of view pain is just another way to taste life - to taste being itself. It is negative because of its effects and connotations, not because of itself intrinsically. If I were deprived of sensation for any significant amount of time, I would soon crave even the stubbing of my toe to the value-poor nothingness. The trouble is that for something to be good, there must be something to be good, thus being is the foundation of goodness, and all things really.

I honestly believe true ethics is based on the foundational claim the existence is good, rather than on someone's assertion that x is the sole good whereas anything non-x is bad or worthless. It seems impossible to prove and for that reason the only way NOT to impose on others is to take accept that existence itself is intrinsically good. The view that holds this is known as "Ontocentrism" and it is pretty new. I'm working on it, but a major figure you might know is "Luciano Floridi" who says information has intrinsic value and all that exist has information in proportion to its ontological contribution, thus all the exists is good. I approach the problem differently, but like I said, it is a new field/view. I'm thinking I'll publish my dissertation as a book. Happy to talk more if anyone ends up actually reading this.
Post Reply