|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Existence A Good In Itself?
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Or as W.S. Gilbert put it, “Is Life A Boon?”
In his Autobiography, G.K. Chesterton, describes an incident involving his grandfather.
A group of young people were “criticizing the General Thanksgiving in the Prayer-Book, and remarking that a good many people have very little reason to be thankful for their creation. And the old man, who was then so old that he very rarely spoke at all, said suddenly out of his silence, ‘I would thank God for my creation if I knew I was a lost soul’”.
Chesterton’s sympathies are obviously with the “old man”, but I can see the young people’s point.
What does our Lord mean by his comment that it would have been better for Judas had he never been born, given that according to broad Christian orthodoxy, the vast majority of humankind is going to share Judas’s damnation?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
‘I would thank God for my creation if I knew I was a lost soul’”.
Sincerely, I don't understand what this means. I think I have a general idea what "lost soul" refers to, but why would they more than anyone else be thankful for their creation?
Could you maybe re-phrase the point in different words?
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
‘I would thank God for my creation if I knew I was a lost soul’”.
Sincerely, I don't understand what this means. I think I have a general idea what "lost soul" refers to, but why would they more than anyone else be thankful for their creation?
Could you maybe re-phrase the point in different words?
I am assuming he meant, "EVEN if I knew I was a lost soul", ie it is better to be, and to suffer, than not to be at all.
C.S. Lewis points out somewhere, that Samuel Johnson suffered from a horror of annihilation which he (Lewis) could neither understand nor share.
[ 29. July 2012, 03:28: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
In discussing theodicy, the maxim is that most people would choose existence over non-existence - therefore life is a gift.
The argument falls down for those whose lives are misery from beginning to end.....
For the majority of us however, I think existence is a good in itself.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I don't know that existence is a good in itself, but it is a necessary precondition of any good.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
It's all relative.
God is happy as He is. It's just that He could be happier with something He can't create, buy, predetermine, cause to happen... love freely given. A pensioner is happy that he has no worries. But another retired person with a stock portfolio could be happier. And yet another similar person could be sad he lost his pension funds in the market. It would have been better if he had not been introduced to stock trading.
Hebrews 10:5 NET
So when he came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
‘I would thank God for my creation if I knew I was a lost soul’”.
Sincerely, I don't understand what this means. I think I have a general idea what "lost soul" refers to, but why would they more than anyone else be thankful for their creation?
Could you maybe re-phrase the point in different words?
I am assuming he meant, "EVEN if I knew I was a lost soul", ie it is better to be, and to suffer, than not to be at all.
C.S. Lewis points out somewhere, that Samuel Johnson suffered from a horror of annihilation which he (Lewis) could neither understand nor share.
Makes no sense to me. And I would imagine the thousands of suicides every year would beg to differ.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Good point!
I would argue that there is good reason to emphasise the reverse of this more though - that one cannot suffer without existing first.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Yes.
But given the choice to exist at all - suffering included - most people would still choose to exist IMO.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes.
But given the choice to exist at all - suffering included - most people would still choose to exist IMO.
Psychology has amply shown that our judgements are impaired by a plethora of biases. The difference between my position and most people's is that I take a strict utilitarian view that suffering should be minimised and joy maximised, whereas most people claim that that subjective and impaired choice to continue existence is most important.
Of course, if you then ask them whether that choice is all important when the person in question is suicidal, suddenly they start hypocritically invoking utilitarianist arguments.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yes. Its all in Athanasius ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) (And maybe Origen IIRC?)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes.
But given the choice to exist at all - suffering included - most people would still choose to exist IMO.
Psychology has amply shown that our judgements are impaired by a plethora of biases. The difference between my position and most people's is that I take a strict utilitarian view that suffering should be minimised and joy maximised, whereas most people claim that that subjective and impaired choice to continue existence is most important.
Of course, if you then ask them whether that choice is all important when the person in question is suicidal, suddenly they start hypocritically invoking utilitarianist arguments.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'm afraid you've lost me.
What does a utilitarian point of view (maximizing joy and minimizing suffering) have to do with existing at all full stop?
If you exist, you have the luxury of deeming how that existence should be orchestrated and the best possible means of orchestrating that existence.
If you do not exist, then a utilitarian point of view is irrelevant.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
Because an existence that produces quantifiably more suffering than joy would therefore be better not to exist.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Because an existence that produces quantifiably more suffering than joy would therefore be better not to exist.
Would it? The smidgen of joy might be sufficient for the sufferer to consider that existence was well worthwhile!
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Because an existence that produces quantifiably more suffering than joy would therefore be better not to exist.
Would it? The smidgen of joy might be sufficient for the sufferer to consider that existence was well worthwhile!
Okay, but that's a fundamentally different premise to the one I'm using. You're saying that a person wanting to live necessarily means that they're right in wanting to live. I disagree.
I also question whether you're consistent in this view when it comes to applying it to suicidal people (i.e. that a person wanting not to live necessarily means that they're right in wanting not to live, and as before, this should presumably be honoured). If you aren't, then why not?
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Because an existence that produces quantifiably more suffering than joy would therefore be better not to exist.
Am I the only person who also factors in the suffering and joy of *others* caused by one's existence? OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk
Because an existence that produces quantifiably more suffering than joy would therefore be better not to exist.
For you maybe. But you have no right to make such an assumption concerning anyone else.
Unfortunately there are those who, appealing to a concept of "quality of life", can make a life and death decision over other people's lives, and they assume (dangerous word!) that it is right to apply your maxim.
quote:
You're saying that a person wanting to live necessarily means that they're right in wanting to live. I disagree.
What do you mean by the word "right" in this context? What moral code are you appealing to in order to come to this conclusion, and how do you justify that moral code? Furthermore, assuming that you have no right to apply such a code (and God help us if you do!), what relevance does it have anyway?
You are, of course, entitled to your (in my view, frighteningly arrogant) opinion, but not if it affects other people in any way at all.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
WhateverTheySay
Shipmate
# 16598
|
Posted
There has been times when I didn't want to exist, but right now I have to say I am happy to be alive.
Whether existence is a good thing or a bad thing obviously depends on the individual. But I would go with the majority saying that it is a good thing (though that is my own opinion and I don't have any evidence).
--------------------
I'm not lost, I just don't know where I am going
Posts: 872 | From: Lost in Space, without a map | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancilla
Shipmate
# 11037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In discussing theodicy, the maxim is that most people would choose existence over non-existence - therefore life is a gift.
I think most people would choose life over death, which is different. I.e. given that we are already alive we don’t want to die. We can’t choose never to have existed and nor can we say it would have been better for us if we hadn’t, since there would be no ‘us’. Though taking OliviaG’s point, some people might think it would have been better for other people, though one couldn’t know either way.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
I take a strict utilitarian view that suffering should be minimised and joy maximised
Suffering and joy are not straightforwardly quantifiable things that can be balanced against one another. Many people, indeed the most inspiring figures of Christianity, have found great joy in the midst of suffering. One might even say that a thankful attitude towards our existence is part of what makes some people able to rejoice in situations which others would find intolerable.
Taking a snapshot view, or even a summative view of a whole life, also doesn’t factor in hope, which is a function of our living in time. One reason why people want to remain alive, and also why people want to prevent suicides, is the hope of life becoming better. You can't factor in that future joy unless you live to find out about it!
[ 29. July 2012, 18:35: Message edited by: Wannabe Heretic ]
--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings
Posts: 424 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
‘I would thank God for my creation if I knew I was a lost soul’”.
Sincerely, I don't understand what this means. I think I have a general idea what "lost soul" refers to, but why would they more than anyone else be thankful for their creation?
Could you maybe re-phrase the point in different words?
I am assuming he meant, "EVEN if I knew I was a lost soul", ie it is better to be, and to suffer, than not to be at all.
C.S. Lewis points out somewhere, that Samuel Johnson suffered from a horror of annihilation which he (Lewis) could neither understand nor share.
Makes no sense to me. And I would imagine the thousands of suicides every year would beg to differ.
Equally, the many disabled people whose lives could have been terminated in the womb, would take issue with your conclusion.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
Do people take issue with my argument, or how they assume that I would think to apply it? I stand by my argument.
I affirm (as I was careful to do implicitly upthread) that the effect of an action on others is of no less importance that the effect on oneself.
I affirm that we have no precise way of quantifying joy and suffering.
I affirm that we have ignorance of the future, although why exactly that should lead to inaction rather than caution and a degree of humility I do not know.
I affirm that it is possible to experience suffering and joy from the same thing; although if the effect is still high net suffering (even when accounting for the relief provided by the joy), then I don't think this is a particularly useful thing to consider.
I affirm that pragmatic rules of thumb are important to operate by so that gross misjudgments arising from a utilitarian analysis are minimised.
And with all of this in mind, I affirm that it is far from clear that it is better to exist than not exist, from a utilitarian perspective.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Because an existence that produces quantifiably more suffering than joy would therefore be better not to exist.
Would it? The smidgen of joy might be sufficient for the sufferer to consider that existence was well worthwhile!
Okay, but that's a fundamentally different premise to the one I'm using. You're saying that a person wanting to live necessarily means that they're right in wanting to live. I disagree.
I also question whether you're consistent in this view when it comes to applying it to suicidal people (i.e. that a person wanting not to live necessarily means that they're right in wanting not to live, and as before, this should presumably be honoured). If you aren't, then why not?
I wasn't making the point that if someone wants to live, or die, at any one moment they are right or wrong. Each may hold another viewpoint the following day. Only at the point of death might a life be assessed, subjectively, as to its value. Which criteria might be set for an objective study?
I was making the point that existence itself might be considered worthwhile without the ratio of joy:suffering that you suggest. A little joy may outweigh a great deal of suffering.
Cross-posted with Lord Clonk.
[ 29. July 2012, 20:49: Message edited by: Raptor Eye ]
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
Raptor Eye: On what basis do you think that life might be worth it due to stuff beyond joy & suffering? Since I'm unlikely to persuade you of my opinion, I ask this in what I hope is a purely curious manner.
Also, I would argue that retrospective analysis is still heavily subject to biases. I, for instance, went through three years recently that I consider undeniably awful... but I'm out of that now, and I'm happy to have had that experience to get to where I am. HOWEVER, an equally important litmus test is that I would never be willing to go through it again in order to gain similarly. Effectively, the past me isn't me anymore, so I have little empathy for him, and obviously I have high empathy for my current self because anything that happens to me is something I'll have to experience personally.
[ 29. July 2012, 21:00: Message edited by: Lord Clonk ]
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Also, I would argue that retrospective analysis is still heavily subject to biases. I, for instance, went through three years recently that I consider undeniably awful... but I'm out of that now, and I'm happy to have had that experience to get to where I am. HOWEVER, an equally important litmus test is that I would never be willing to go through it again in order to gain similarly. Effectively, the past me isn't me anymore, so I have little empathy for him, and obviously I have high empathy for my current self because anything that happens to me is something I'll have to experience personally.
I agree, an assessment will inevitably be subjective. This is one of the points I made above.
quote:
Raptor Eye: On what basis do you think that life might be worth it due to stuff beyond joy & suffering? Since I'm unlikely to persuade you of my opinion, I ask this in what I hope is a purely curious manner.
Off the top of my head: Life may be worthwhile if for the greater good: it were a learning exercise; it were a factor in a creation; it were nourishment; it were to have relational ability.
Of course, life in which form is one of the questions to be considered, and the moral implications of any of the above are debatable!
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Effectively, the past me isn't me anymore
This is a tangent, and could possibly be taken up with a different post, but I find this issue quite interesting.
I despise self-pity, and rigorously resist any temptation to feel sorry for myself over anything which has happened to me in my adult life.
However, I often experience, without guilt, strongly moving pangs of sympathy for my childhood and adolescent self, as regards things which occurred then, because it feels as if i am addressing another person.
I suggest that it is not necessary to resort to scientific reductionism (the fact that our cells are totally renewed every seven years) or postmodern theories of the infinite fluidity of identity, in order to postulate some degree of separation from an earlier us.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I don't know that existence is a good in itself, but it is a necessary precondition of any good.
I don't see that anyone has defined "good."
For me the definition would be that something is "good" that aligns with the qualities and purpose of God. God is love itself and love has three qualities:
- It requires an object to love that is not itself.
- It seeks to be freely joined with the object of its love.
- It seeks to make the loved one happy.
Existence fulfils the first of these, so it is something good in itself.
Of course nothing is good in itself except God. Everything else has its goodness from Him.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Clonk
Shipmate
# 13205
|
Posted
Freddy: my definition of good was the minimising of suffering and the maximising of joy. I believe that God is good only insofar as God works to these ends.
Kaplan Corday: My experience is similar, although I add the caveat that when past experiences have a bearing on my future (either by their consequences, or what they say about my tendencies) I experience them as referring to me now. Philosophically, I am of the opinion that each moment of my existence is a moral entity (can experience joy/suffering) that is morally separate from all the other moments of my existence. Thus, ten years of suffering for me is morally equivalent to five years of equivalent suffering for two other people (factoring in the fact that the longer it goes on, the more psychologically difficult it might be). I guess it follows from this that I shouldn't feel empathy with my future self any more than I feel empathy with others, but my brain doesn't let me do this - I wonder whether the final judgement involves fixing that curiously biased perspective.
Posts: 267 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Existence fulfils the first of these, so it is something good in itself.
When I come to the point where I can rate my whole life and whether it was worth living or not, I will judge based on how I felt about it, not how anyone else felt about it. God included. "The greater good" can suck it - when the rubber hits the road I'm in this for me.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Freddy: my definition of good was the minimising of suffering and the maximising of joy. I believe that God is good only insofar as God works to these ends.
Sorry, I missed that. That is a good definition, as far as it goes.
I agree that a good God would want to minimise suffering and maximize joy. We wouldn't want, however, to compromise the "freely joined" part though.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Freddy: my definition of good was the minimising of suffering and the maximising of joy. I believe that God is good only insofar as God works to these ends.
Sorry, I missed that. That is a good definition, as far as it goes.
I agree that a good God would want to minimise suffering and maximize joy. We wouldn't want, however, to compromise the "freely joined" part though.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
When I come to the point where I can rate my whole life and whether it was worth living or not, I will judge based on how I felt about it, not how anyone else felt about it. God included. "The greater good" can suck it - when the rubber hits the road I'm in this for me.
On the other hand I think that most of us are ready to sacrifice all joy, all comfort, every shred of pleasantness, to make life good for others.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Equally, the many disabled people whose lives could have been terminated in the womb, would take issue with your conclusion.
Your terminology suggests all people with disabilities would feel that way - which may or may not be true. And of course there are some whose life ends in awful pain just a few hours or even minutes after birth. They can't give an answer but if they knew that suffering without any glimmer of hope or relief was all that was on offer they might not chose it.
Part of the problem seems to be it isn't clear whether we are talking about coming into existence or considering whether an existence with a history and consciousness is always worth continuing with.
If you mean the latter, I seem to recall there was once a young Jew who decided that even a painful death might be better than running away.
[ 30. July 2012, 16:22: Message edited by: que sais-je ]
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Equally, the many disabled people whose lives could have been terminated in the womb, would take issue with your conclusion.
Your terminology suggests all people with disabilities would feel that way - which may or may not be true. And of course there are some whose life ends in awful pain just a few hours or even minutes after birth. They can't give an answer but if they knew that suffering without any glimmer of hope or relief was all that was on offer they might not chose it.
Part of the problem seems to be it isn't clear whether we are talking about coming into existence or considering whether an existence with a history and consciousness is always worth continuing with.
If you mean the latter, I seem to recall there was once a young Jew who decided that even a painful death might be better than running away.
I was thinking about people I know - people's whose existence could have been terminated before birth on the grounds that their projected quality of life was considered to be so low that death was perceived to have been a kindness.
Mind you, there is a difference between someone living with a disability when that is all they have known, and people who have sufferd loss through disablement.
Your point about a certain Jew is well made. It does, I think, answer the point above about judging quality of life by a utilitarian standard. Suffering oneself for the benefit of others runs strongly counter to a judgement based in personal utility alone.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In discussing theodicy, the maxim is that most people would choose existence over non-existence - therefore life is a gift.
No it isn’t (the life is a gift bit) – and even if it were whether or not people would prefer existence to the alternative would be irrelevant
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But given the choice to exist at all - suffering included - most people would still choose to exist IMO.
We have an instinctive desire for life*, reinforced by the ability to hope that things will get better. Sometimes despair can over-ride the combination.
*Try committing suicide by holding your breath, if you make it to unconciousness your brain will automatically re-engage breathing.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk
Because an existence that produces quantifiably more suffering than joy would therefore be better not to exist.
For you maybe. But you have no right to make such an assumption concerning anyone else.
Unfortunately there are those who, appealing to a concept of "quality of life", can make a life and death decision over other people's lives, and they assume (dangerous word!) that it is right to apply your maxim.
Perhaps sometimes it is an arduous responsibility? Would you take that decision for your dog if it was in terminal pain? Would you take it for yourself? I know elderly people who want to die but cannot do anything to achieve that end – would you forcibly resuscitate them so that they can have more unwanted, hated years?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
On the other hand I think that most of us are ready to sacrifice all joy, all comfort, every shred of pleasantness, to make life good for others.
If by “us” you mean humanity at large rather than some tiny subset of humanity you are living in cloud cuckoo land. A bit of joy, a little comfort maybe – very few would (be daft enough to?) starve to death so that someone else could have a slap-up meal.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
On the other hand I think that most of us are ready to sacrifice all joy, all comfort, every shred of pleasantness, to make life good for others.
If by “us” you mean humanity at large rather than some tiny subset of humanity you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
No fair. You looked at my profile. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
No fair. You looked at my profile.
In fact it took me a full minute to work out what you meant - but, since watching Derren Brown on telly, I fully accept that my choice of words could have been un/sub-conciously influenced.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
If I owned seed, it would be a valued possession. I could sell it, use the proceeds to feed myself. If I plant it, it would benefit many more, from the fruit it bears. If I plant it in stony ground, or neglect watering it, it would wither. I would have neither seed nor fruit.
It would have been better if I had not allowed the seed to germinate.
Yeah, I'm having fun trying different analogies...
1 Corinthians 15:36 NET
Fool! What you sow will not come to life unless it dies.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
‘I would thank God for my creation if I knew I was a lost soul’”.
Sincerely, I don't understand what this means. I think I have a general idea what "lost soul" refers to, but why would they more than anyone else be thankful for their creation?
Could you maybe re-phrase the point in different words?
I am assuming he meant, "EVEN if I knew I was a lost soul", ie it is better to be, and to suffer, than not to be at all.
C.S. Lewis points out somewhere, that Samuel Johnson suffered from a horror of annihilation which he (Lewis) could neither understand nor share.
Makes no sense to me. And I would imagine the thousands of suicides every year would beg to differ.
Equally, the many disabled people whose lives could have been terminated in the womb, would take issue with your conclusion.
What?
[ 31. July 2012, 10:13: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
