The Goodness of Existence

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

withcaremorality
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:07 pm

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by withcaremorality »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:01 pm
Dimebag wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 11:30 amBut, for me personally, I am glad I exist.
Just maybe you say that is because you already exist...so it's not like you have a choice to live your existence or not...you have to live it whether you like it or not...You did not choose to be born, that choice was made by someone else. So you have to play the game....what's the alternative...you cannot even comprehend an alternative, since life is all you can know.

On the other hand, even though you did not choose to be born...maybe you are one of those people who just like being alive...and that's ok. But, I do not think that's Benatars argument...he's arguing the imposition that not everyone who is born will be happy about it....as many people young and old go on to commit suicide.
Dimebag wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 11:30 am There has been suffering. There has also been happiness, and pleasure. I keep the Buddhist concept of impermanence in mind when reflecting on the past pleasure and pain, as well as future pleasure and pain. The one thing which remains is that which isn’t (formlessness).

For me, especially after realising what I am, experientially, it has been worth the suffering, even though suffering continues.
Sounds fine for you...but for me personally, and for many others...if I was able to choose to be born knowing what I know about being alive...I wouldn't choose to be born. Then again, other people, like yourself, would choose to be born again.

But the problem of ( birth )runs much deeper than whether someone likes being alive or not...And that is for every person that has ever been born, who has ever experienced the knowledge of what it feels like to be alive....NEVER actually chose to be alive....and I think that's what David Benatar's main bone of contention is ...no one gets to choose their own conception...the choice is made by someone else...namely, the two people who indulge in sexual activity....already knowing that action can result in another life being born...not really giving any consideration to the idea that their potential ''offspring'' might not want what someone else has thought to a good idea or that life will be of a benefit to them.

Assuming the two people having sex know that by having sex does result in more life...if they do not know...then no one ever chooses life anyway...and so there would be no harm or benefit of being alive there at all.


David Benatar's idea is that if you've NEVER known life in the first place, then there is nothing to gain, or miss, for never having it, neither is there any need or desire for it...all these ideas regarding knowledge are purely subjective.

Obviously once you are alive...you've got two choices, love or loath.

It really starts to get messy, when people who loath their own life, then go on to make more lives.

If you knew that you were going to be tortured by life in the most horrific ways before you were born, and that you had the choice whether to accept that experience ..would you willing choose to experience that? ...for me personally, a life time supply of chocolate would not tempt me into ever being born again....already knowing what it feels like to be alive.


.
One cannot ask for a life they would cherish before they exist either. I could just as easily say that extreme pessimists only know existence and not the void (wherein one cannot choose to not exist). They can continue saying that existence is bad, but this doesn't change the ineluctable fact that they cannot comprehend that they did not choose to not exist in nothingness.

I think that it's deeply tragic that many people cannot find adequate value in their lives, and I appreciate compassionate people like you who wish to alleviate suffering. At the same time, one cannot disregard all the innumerable positive experiences that billions of sentient beings have. If creation can be an imposition, it can also be a gift.

That's the thing: we cannot choose to exist, but we also cannot ask for existence. In light of this, the best option seems to be to take procreation a lot more seriously without making blanket statements like "procreation is always immoral".

The beauty of birth is also deeper than some people might think. The truth is that having an existence that one loves but could not have solicited has unfathomable value. I think that many individuals would be quite happy that other people chose something good for them when they weren't in a position to do so themselves. If you say that nobody asked for existence, then one could also say that nobody has an interest in not existing (before their birth) that we are ignoring by creating them.

If not existing is neither a harm nor a benefit, then it cannot be said to be preferable to existence.

Benatar's argument is flawed. If you need to have a desire for the positives in order for their absence to be bad, then the absence of harms can only be good if they allow an individual to live a more satisfied life. In this case, non-existence cannot be better/worse than existence (but birth can have value for those who do exist).

As long as there are good people like you out there, I believe that love will triumph over loathing.

Of course, if one already exists, then they wouldn't want to choose an inferior existence. As for your point about chocolates, I would say that, with all due respect, when one finds true happiness, they would find existence to be the more rational choice. I wouldn't want to be born for thr chocolates either; I would want to exist for the love that made them.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by popeye1945 »

withcaremorality wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:17 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 2:36 pm The goodness of existence is debateable, if the value of existence is in experience both of suffering and joys, non- existence beats existence as existence's sole purpose is to stay in existence which is futility in itself. A better life through chemistry----lol!!
Non-existence hardly seems more purposeful!
withcaremorality,

To stay in existence is a struggle for life, this is its purpose. Non-existence while having no purpose has no struggle considering just the individual and not the species, for while the individual body fades away the consciousness continues on its journey in the next generation. Each individual is the keeping of the flame of what is the essence of the chain of being. Not to say there are not joys in the journey but it is struggle and procreation to continue the chain of being the chain of consciousness is relative immortality to the temporal individual.
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: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:49 pm
One cannot ask for a life they would cherish before they exist either. I could just as easily say that extreme pessimists only know existence and not the void (wherein one cannot choose to not exist). They can continue saying that existence is bad, but this doesn't change the ineluctable fact that they cannot comprehend that they did not choose to not exist in nothingness.
The main issue I am pointing to...is that if no one ever chooses to be born, it only follows that no one chooses not to be born...this is obvious and self-evident in this immediate unborn knowing awareness....and so, it can be known that there is just life living itself without a mind to know it is born or not born....which logically means that the CONCEPTION OF A MIND is just an illusion of the senses, which appear to create the sense of illusory separation of knower and known. ....When in reality, it is also known that 'conceptual knowing' is only an illusion, simply because it is also known in contrast that no one chooses to know they are a pessimist or an optimist. And certainly no one chooses to know they are a positive or a negative person. And that here there is just the pain or pleasure sensation that no one ever chose to have, or could prevent, or avoid or choose to have in favor of it's opposite, and that there's just pure raw sensation arising here, and happening as and through this immediate knowing awareness of it, and that no one ever chose to feel good or bad...or to experience and be aware of this knowing awareness.

However, the very FACT that pain and suffering is a real deal to be experienced as a sensation can never be extinguished by knowing the absence of such pain and suffering can be a permanent condition that can be 100% ensured and guaranteed by sprinkling a dose of Goodness on it...In fact, goodness can only be known to exist as a sensation of relief from the pain and suffering. ..But this goodness is never a permanent state that can wipe away the pain for good, rather, the idea of GOOD is only created, become known, because of the apparent absence of pain and suffering. . insofar as nature abhors a vacuum...there will always be some feeling to fill it...which points to the ever presence of opposites that have to exist simultaneously in the exact same moment of knowing....So in knowing sensation, it can be known that no one is ever actually choosing these known sensations... we can say the absence of a bad feeling is a good situation ..and that a good situation can only be known in relation to the bad situation, but ultimately this knowing is all a mental construction, in that it is an illusion. There is no such condition that is ever going to be always just GOOD..because even Good is a temporal experience, that can be taken away by it's exact same and complimentary opposite.
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: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:49 pmIf not existing is neither a harm nor a benefit, then it cannot be said to be preferable to existence.
But if no one chooses to be born or not to be born...then the concept of ''preference'' remains an ever present moot and invalid concept, insofar as the concept is just an artifcial conception of the mind, it's an illusion, it does not exist in the real world.

No one can prefer a life over no life...there's just life living itself all alone. Life is and will always be a verb.
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: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:49 pm
As long as there are good people like you out there, I believe that love will triumph over loathing.


Of course, if one already exists, then they wouldn't want to choose an inferior existence. As for your point about chocolates, I would say that, with all due respect, when one finds true happiness, they would find existence to be the more rational choice. I wouldn't want to be born for thr chocolates either; I would want to exist for the love that made them.
Here now, you are talking about a scenario where there is known an apparent ''choice'' to love or not to love... totally missing the point that no one ever chooses to choose or not choose.

Benatars argument is that if 'CHOICE' was/is real...if ''choice'' is actually a known experience, then why would one choose to be born and risk the known harm when it doesn't have to take that risk?

So even the word LOVE is just a human emotional mental construction of the mind...But does this concept actually exist for real...in the real world...or is it just an artificial mental conception?.....For example: A mature adult bird is known to fling it's own chicks to their deaths, from an overcrowded nest to ensure the successful survival of the other chicks...So is that observed action a sacrifice of Love, is it worth paying just for the sake of the other chicks? ...Logically, this example is just one of so many others that shows the true face of nature to be INDIFFERENT to the concept of LOVE..simply because it's an artificial concept within the illusory nature of the mind. The illusory nature of the mind is to impose preferences on what is essentially at it's basic and raw core, indifferent having no preferences, insofar as nature ultimately free from intentional choice to prefer one outcome over another. It's only within the artificial dream of separation, the knowing I exist as a self-aware being does the requirement for responsiblity come into play...and we call that love...albeit illusory...because who is choosing to be LOVE...? no one is...do you see the problem? ...and that is what Benatar is pointing to.


If you know Love to be real as a concept, and at the same know it's an illusory mental construction that is the nature of the illusion...why would you continue to want the illusion to persist, when you know you do not have to?
withcaremorality
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:07 pm

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by withcaremorality »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:54 pm
withcaremorality wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:17 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 2:36 pm The goodness of existence is debateable, if the value of existence is in experience both of suffering and joys, non- existence beats existence as existence's sole purpose is to stay in existence which is futility in itself. A better life through chemistry----lol!!
Non-existence hardly seems more purposeful!
withcaremorality,

To stay in existence is a struggle for life, this is its purpose. Non-existence while having no purpose has no struggle considering just the individual and not the species, for while the individual body fades away the consciousness continues on its journey in the next generation. Each individual is the keeping of the flame of what is the essence of the chain of being. Not to say there are not joys in the journey but it is struggle and procreation to continue the chain of being the chain of consciousness is relative immortality to the temporal individual.

Keeping the flame of joy alive can be a worthwhile goal, in my opinion. Of course, this isn't possible in all cases. Non-existence has no value, but if it's good due to prevented harms, it's also bad due to the prevented goods. If the struggle can act as a path towards adequate, though not absolute happiness, then I don't think that it is better to choose the void.
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 7:57 am
withcaremorality wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:49 pm
One cannot ask for a life they would cherish before they exist either. I could just as easily say that extreme pessimists only know existence and not the void (wherein one cannot choose to not exist). They can continue saying that existence is bad, but this doesn't change the ineluctable fact that they cannot comprehend that they did not choose to not exist in nothingness.
The main issue I am pointing to...is that if no one ever chooses to be born, it only follows that no one chooses not to be born...this is obvious and self-evident in this immediate unborn knowing awareness....and so, it can be known that there is just life living itself without a mind to know it is born or not born....which logically means that the CONCEPTION OF A MIND is just an illusion of the senses, which appear to create the sense of illusory separation of knower and known. ....When in reality, it is also known that 'conceptual knowing' is only an illusion, simply because it is also known in contrast that no one chooses to know they are a pessimist or an optimist. And certainly no one chooses to know they are a positive or a negative person. And that here there is just the pain or pleasure sensation that no one ever chose to have, or could prevent, or avoid or choose to have in favor of it's opposite, and that there's just pure raw sensation arising here, and happening as and through this immediate knowing awareness of it, and that no one ever chose to feel good or bad...or to experience and be aware of this knowing awareness.

However, the very FACT that pain and suffering is a real deal to be experienced as a sensation can never be extinguished by knowing the absence of such pain and suffering can be a permanent condition that can be 100% ensured and guaranteed by sprinkling a dose of Goodness on it...In fact, goodness can only be known to exist as a sensation of relief from the pain and suffering. ..But this goodness is never a permanent state that can wipe away the pain for good, rather, the idea of GOOD is only created, become known, because of the apparent absence of pain and suffering. . insofar as nature abhors a vacuum...there will always be some feeling to fill it...which points to the ever presence of opposites that have to exist simultaneously in the exact same moment of knowing....So in knowing sensation, it can be known that no one is ever actually choosing these known sensations... we can say the absence of a bad feeling is a good situation ..and that a good situation can only be known in relation to the bad situation, but ultimately this knowing is all a mental construction, in that it is an illusion. There is no such condition that is ever going to be always just GOOD..because even Good is a temporal experience, that can be taken away by it's exact same and complimentary opposite.

I don't think that the topic of choice is morally relevant when there aren't any beings floating around in nothingness having a desire to not exist that is being ignored by their creation. But even if the idea is applicable, then one has to point out that people cannot choose to have a good life either. Just as an act is considered bad if it results in a person experiencing a harm they never said they wanted, an act can also be good if it provides a benefit that one could not have asked for. The unity of being and avoiding illusions is certainly good, but I don't think that doing so is only possible by never creating someone.

Good and bad are both temporal sensations experienced by people. Badness can also only be present if it deprives one of the good of happiness/satisfaction, so I don't believe that one is more important than the other. I am not saying that any good experience can efface the negative ones. However, it's not as if the ineffably powerful experiences of love and beauty can be simply erased by other harms. No situation is permanently good, but neither is it always bad (even if we might not always recognise that).
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 8:39 am
withcaremorality wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:49 pm
As long as there are good people like you out there, I believe that love will triumph over loathing.


Of course, if one already exists, then they wouldn't want to choose an inferior existence. As for your point about chocolates, I would say that, with all due respect, when one finds true happiness, they would find existence to be the more rational choice. I wouldn't want to be born for thr chocolates either; I would want to exist for the love that made them.
Here now, you are talking about a scenario where there is known an apparent ''choice'' to love or not to love... totally missing the point that no one ever chooses to choose or not choose.

Benatars argument is that if 'CHOICE' was/is real...if ''choice'' is actually a known experience, then why would one choose to be born and risk the known harm when it doesn't have to take that risk?

So even the word LOVE is just a human emotional mental construction of the mind...But does this concept actually exist for real...in the real world...or is it just an artificial mental conception?.....For example: A mature adult bird is known to fling it's own chicks to their deaths, from an overcrowded nest to ensure the successful survival of the other chicks...So is that observed action a sacrifice of Love, is it worth paying just for the sake of the other chicks? ...Logically, this example is just one of so many others that shows the true face of nature to be INDIFFERENT to the concept of LOVE..simply because it's an artificial concept within the illusory nature of the mind. The illusory nature of the mind is to impose preferences on what is essentially at it's basic and raw core, indifferent having no preferences, insofar as nature ultimately free from intentional choice to prefer one outcome over another. It's only within the artificial dream of separation, the knowing I exist as a self-aware being does the requirement for responsiblity come into play...and we call that love...albeit illusory...because who is choosing to be LOVE...? no one is...do you see the problem? ...and that is what Benatar is pointing to.


If you know Love to be real as a concept, and at the same know it's an illusory mental construction that is the nature of the illusion...why would you continue to want the illusion to persist, when you know you do not have to?

Even if choice is ultimately illusory, people still have to act as if it isn't, and this is precisely why moral discourse exists. If one is determined to hate, they might also go on to love.

There are many people (including myself) who would wish to experience the positives even if there are harms. One cannot impose their perspective onto others. Risks aren't the only thing that matter. Opportunities are also important.

Benatar's worldview is limited. As far as the bird is concerned, it may recognise that its actions cause harm. Nevertheless, it would still do so if it could result in a greater good (survival instead of a painful death whilst the bird is young). Furthermore, I've seen many birds, such as parrots, sitting calmly and having what I can only call conversations with each other. Thankfully, people aren't birds or mere animals without intellect. Countless individuals sacrifice their lives for the benefit of others, including their children, country, vision, etc.

Love is all real as hate or anything else. Breaking the illusion (if it exists) is a matter of self-realization, not a strong proclivity towards non-existence. Complex situations require nuanced solutions.
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 8:11 am
withcaremorality wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:49 pmIf not existing is neither a harm nor a benefit, then it cannot be said to be preferable to existence.
But if no one chooses to be born or not to be born...then the concept of ''preference'' remains an ever present moot and invalid concept, insofar as the concept is just an artifcial conception of the mind, it's an illusion, it does not exist in the real world.

No one can prefer a life over no life...there's just life living itself all alone. Life is and will always be a verb.

If one can talk as if the choice to not create exists, then one can also speak about other options. I do think that the idea of choice isn't applicable, but I would also again point out that bestowing a good that one cannot choose can be a good act.

They certainly can. Negation requires affirmation of something (allegedly greater). Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I hope that you have a great day.
withcaremorality
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:07 pm

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by withcaremorality »

withcaremorality wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:24 am
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:11 am
withcaremorality wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:49 pmIf not existing is neither a harm nor a benefit, then it cannot be said to be preferable to existence.
But if no one chooses to be born or not to be born...then the concept of ''preference'' remains an ever present moot and invalid concept, insofar as the concept is just an artifcial conception of the mind, it's an illusion, it does not exist in the real world.

No one can prefer a life over no life...there's just life living itself all alone. Life is and will always be a verb.

If one can talk as if the choice to not create exists, then one can also speak about other options. I do think that the idea of choice isn't applicable, but I would also again point out that bestowing a good that one cannot choose can be a good act.

They certainly can. Negation requires affirmation of something (allegedly greater). Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I hope that you have a great day.
In the face of a mostly unpleasant inevitability (I disagree with the claim that it's mostly unpleasant/bad), perhaps the best course of action is gradual and realistic improvements so that the harms are diminished significantly and people can focus on their individual journeys. David Pearce's hedonistic imperative is an interesting idea that aims to eliminate most forms of harms. Additionally, a liberal right to a graceful exit can also help, irrespective of when and how one would be determined to choose it.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by popeye1945 »

The goodness of existence should be measured against the reality of life lives upon life or symbolically the snake consuming its own tail which is called The Ouroboros. It has been argued that in fact, nothing is really happening in this situation that despite the pain and suffering involved it is just life maintaining itself. Personally, I think it would be a sick fuck of a god that would setup this arrangement nature red in tooth and claw of which humanity plays its role.
withcaremorality
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:07 pm

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by withcaremorality »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:28 pm The goodness of existence should be measured against the reality of life lives upon life or symbolically the snake consuming its own tail which is called The Ouroboros. It has been argued that in fact, nothing is really happening in this situation that despite the pain and suffering involved it is just life maintaining itself. Personally, I think it would be a sick fuck of a god that would setup this arrangement nature red in tooth and claw of which humanity plays its role.
It's dark, but there is also light. There can be beauty in the infinite. What some would call maintenance can also be seen as invaluable goods by others. Hopefully, we can continue to reduce suffering.
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 11:21 am

Even if choice is ultimately illusory, people still have to act as if it isn't, and this is precisely why moral discourse exists. If one is determined to hate, they might also go on to love.
Hating or Loving life, is just the same one energy arising as two opposing energies within itself, there is nothing wrong with that. Discourse is always with itself.

And Yes, in the make-believe world of actors, the sense of artificial separation, the actors are still morally responsible for their actions, because to understand morality, it to understand the dual dynamics that are the consequences of their actions within the actual experience.. But, that's not the point, the point is, for the human actor, their life is all just an ACT..A role they believe they are playing.

In reality...The universe has no need or requirement for a human actor to prance around on a stage clapping or booing at it's believed acting roles...That's just an artificial imposition UPON what is always real, and not rehearsed...remembering that every actor needs a script else there is no play....in reality, there is no script, nor are there any actions...there are only reactions...which are illusory.

Benatar is right.

So yes, we are still responsible for bringing new life into the world, already knowing that is can be a harm...and that's the risk we take everytime we procreate...even when we also can be responsible by not imposing that risk at all...and the universe wouldn't give a damn one way or the other, as it has no requirement or need for such a drama.
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 1:03 pm
withcaremorality wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:21 am

Even if choice is ultimately illusory, people still have to act as if it isn't, and this is precisely why moral discourse exists. If one is determined to hate, they might also go on to love.
Hating or Loving life, is just the same one energy arising as two opposing energies within itself, there is nothing wrong with that. Discourse is always with itself.

And Yes, in the make-believe world of actors, the sense of artificial separation, the actors are still morally responsible for their actions, because to understand morality, it to understand the dual dynamics that are the consequences of their actions within the actual experience.. But, that's not the point, the point is, for the human actor, their life is all just an ACT..A role they believe they are playing.

In reality...The universe has no need or requirement for a human actor to prance around on a stage clapping or booing at it's believed acting roles...That's just an artificial imposition UPON what is always real, and not rehearsed...remembering that every actor needs a script else there is no play....in reality, there is no script, nor are there any actions...there are only reactions...which are illusory.

Benatar is right.

So yes, we are still responsible for bringing new life into the world, already knowing that is can be a harm...and that's the risk we take everytime we procreate...even when we also can be responsible by not imposing that risk at all...and the universe wouldn't give a damn one way or the other, as it has no requirement or need for such a drama.
Benatar is wrong. The universe has no reason to eradicate/prevent all happiness. The play can be a tragedy, yet it can also be a potent display of imperishable hope and care. Personally, I see no good reason to accept the claim that bestowing positives that cannot be solicited isn't a good that deserves to continue (assuming that impositions need to stop).

Reality, whatever it might be, is not going to be better off by a pessimistic end of all that has value.

I hope that you have a wonderful day
withcaremorality
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:07 pm

Re: The Goodness of Existence

Post by withcaremorality »

withcaremorality wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:45 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:03 pm
withcaremorality wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:21 am

Even if choice is ultimately illusory, people still have to act as if it isn't, and this is precisely why moral discourse exists. If one is determined to hate, they might also go on to love.
Hating or Loving life, is just the same one energy arising as two opposing energies within itself, there is nothing wrong with that. Discourse is always with itself.

And Yes, in the make-believe world of actors, the sense of artificial separation, the actors are still morally responsible for their actions, because to understand morality, it to understand the dual dynamics that are the consequences of their actions within the actual experience.. But, that's not the point, the point is, for the human actor, their life is all just an ACT..A role they believe they are playing.

In reality...The universe has no need or requirement for a human actor to prance around on a stage clapping or booing at it's believed acting roles...That's just an artificial imposition UPON what is always real, and not rehearsed...remembering that every actor needs a script else there is no play....in reality, there is no script, nor are there any actions...there are only reactions...which are illusory.

Benatar is right.

So yes, we are still responsible for bringing new life into the world, already knowing that is can be a harm...and that's the risk we take everytime we procreate...even when we also can be responsible by not imposing that risk at all...and the universe wouldn't give a damn one way or the other, as it has no requirement or need for such a drama.
Benatar is wrong. The universe has no reason to eradicate/prevent all happiness. The play can be a tragedy, yet it can also be a potent display of imperishable hope and care. Personally, I see no good reason to accept the claim that bestowing positives that cannot be solicited isn't a good that deserves to continue (assuming that impositions need to stop).

Reality, whatever it might be, is not going to be better off by a pessimistic end of all that has value. To understand morality is to recognise the variegated nature of the sentient experience and to not allow the allure of the void distract us from the real power of affirmation. I would reiterate that I don't think that this is always the case, but the percentage can definitely be increased.

I hope that you have a wonderful day!
Post Reply