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.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:01 pmJust 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.
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.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.
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.
.
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.