Given there is wisdom in the universe, define the wisest option; [note they are universals, not specific to one or a few individuals]
a, Bringing someone into the world is evil
b, Taking someone out of the world is evil
c, Stopping someone from living is evil
A being born.
B being terminated.
C not being born.
I would say that you fist have to deny option c in order to be good, that means you have to go with a, which leaves you with no option about b.
What do you think is the wisest option, or the better option for any given reason?
For example, you may deny option a, by agreeing with option b ~ I.e. by killing everyone you stop all three options from further occurrence, although you are then committing b.
When we die our bodies get recycled and sometimes death brings life.
Death is natural but having an aversion to death is also natural.
I teach : let us be eager to live, eager to die; all can be good.
So giving no one the chance to exist is wisest. Maybe, but then look at the history books, then all the great writers, artists and philosophers etc, if we look beyond the individual the world yields magnificent things ~ which is surely wiser? Equally to accept ‘c’ then we are also looking beyond the individual, so we have at least one mutual basis yet they contradict each other absolutely.
I think you get more good than bad, but I see your point. Maybe ‘the book of life’* is all that matters ultimately? *I.e. the result of all our actions, histories and works etc, suffering is only words in the book. That aside suffering and wisdom seam like two sides of the same coin, if you don’t have the suffering you don’t get the artist [etc]. equally if humanity doesn’t generally suffer then it doesn’t grow or attain greatness.
Is then ‘the worth of the attainments, greater than all the deficits of the trial’?
They are a tiny minority, as compared to the all life in the universe [the universe itself even] that you would be denying existence.
We need to understand it without making the assumption that its all about the individual, this goes for all ~ is universal philosophy, its not just about the individuals within each sphere.
I think you’ve already said it best, though I’d add one slight modification–
Death is inevitable for all things living, so an advocate of birth is at once an advocate of death. However, I think you are correct in saying one is left with no option about B (termination) on a universal level – that is left relative.
I say this because a birth does not generally threaten a greater good for that which exists (though upbringing can, as I’m sure we can agree). Some particular life, in certain circumstances, can threaten a greater good - like, say, a terrorist bomber for example. To kill the bomber would be of far less threat to the greater good than allowing him to kill himself and 100 others with him.
On the other hand, I might also say that the logic flows to all three options, given the model you’ve presented. Denial of C (preventing life is not evil) could be argued because of A (bringing life into this world is evil), thus leading one to conclude a denial of B (terminating life is not evil) on the basis that one is being removed from that which is evil (the world). The denial of C, in conjunction with acceptance of A, suggests that the actions, in themselves, are not inherently evil – rather, evil enters the equation when a relationship with the world is formed (eg. birth is not evil, but birth into this world is). Even further, I think it can be agreed that the Earth itself is not evil, but made evil by its inhabitants; which points back to a denial of B.
…which I might also agree with if I had any clue what was beyond this world.
As Schopenhauer said: does the pleasure of the fox eating a meal outweigh the displeasure of the rabbit that is torn limb from limb to be eaten? And each fox requires many rabbits, each cat requires many mice and birds, each dolphin requires many fish. There’s no comparison between amounts or intensities of pleasure and stress, anxiety, fear, pain in nature. It depends on whether you judge that as “evil” or not, though.
Very true we all suffer and we all die, so that option is already taken. I would see the problem as prior to existence because with c we have to decide weather or not to even create the possibility of life.
In that case if we do decide upon the ‘evil’ of c, then have we already determined birth and death as a necessity? […and hence suffering]
The 3 sphere’s; unborn, living, terminating life [death].
What I meant was that we should count the options as they affect everyone not just a proportion. I.e. All to live, all to die, all not be born in the first place.
statiktech
Indeed, it is still a factor of course, as one still has to contemplate that by giving birth you are giving death, which is what make c ‘evil’. you are right though it is left relative.
Unless it creates overpopulation e.g. if we all had 15 children then we populate the world with 45 billion [approx] in a single generation. That is though an exception to the case as you infer.
Like giving life to hitler esp, if someone like him wins a war. Can we make the decision to stop the creation of all life due to the iniquities of the particular? [certainly not on the universal level] I wouldn’t think so, indeed ultimately people like hitler make us desire good more.
Wow. Yes; ‘the logic flows to all three options’, the world is not wholly evil yet evil is contained within it yes. So denial of life [c] can only be proportional to that transient factor, hence the greater good is to allow for the possibility of life yes? So figuratively speaking god was right to create the world, all things being considered. Or in terms of principles, it is more right to give life and the possibility of life [creation/the world] even though you have all death* and some suffering. [*all life dies]
Then possibly;
d, denying a soul eternity is evil?
that’s like cheating it makes the option very simple, because even though all life dies, the soul then enters eternity and the whole reason fro it all is to create life to such ends.
Hmm, however for the worldly choice we still have the fact that when a soul is taken from us, a family is destroyed, a friend/lover is lost etc, and when we eventually meet then they could be very different people with new lives/wives/friends etc.
It actually is still a difficult moral choice Imho.
No a life where both rabbits and fox’s live their lives [and mostly only get destroyed if they are old, crippled/wounded, diseased or deficient in some way] then die, give the balance in favour of life. This especially when we consider that they will die anyway.
True to a degree. Overall from an impersonal perspective [as with the whole, infinity, and history etc] there is a continuance of life/existence and death is only a fraction of that, ~ and which only occurs on the individual level. Eternity sees life continuing - if that’s an adequate metaphor.
I would say existence is better than non existence, as the negative produces nothing and hence has no value.
More to the point you describe why ‘c’ maybe is not ‘evil’, or the lesser option, yet it is an act of taking away, where to deny ’c’ is an act of giving. So you prescribe death over life, because life includes death?
Is this a conclusion that can ever be arrived at logically, given existence?
Perhaps if we had some testament to non-existence by which to compare. As for now, given existence, I would opine that existence is better than non-existence simply because what does come into existence should necessarily exist for some reason.
That is not to imply that which exists must also persist, just that there is a reason (or ‘purpose’, perhaps) to exist. I’ll also go ahead and admit that I’ve been reading up on Spinoza a good bit lately…
I kinda see principles like here as derivative of some primordial meaning, as if somehow these things are sorted out prior to existence happening. The way I see infinity is like a pool, where if you throw ideas into it, they then expand without limit [as infinity is limitless] and thence reach a wisdom conclusion [the yoga of a meaning, or stretching to the full etc], without effort - so to say.
Yeah, this is kind of how i am interpreting determinism a la Spinoza. That which exists necessarily exists for some reason, likely from some causal process that has been in flux for all of history.
Very interesting thought. So one might say that, given existence, the purpose of existence now is to be understood and perpetuated.
The purpose of existence is to exist, or allow existence to expand to its full potential?
Yes, yet with infinity as the base, the causal forces maybe somewhat different to how we usually see them. I am not sure if we can call such things causal, when they lay outside the realm of cause and effect in linear terms.
Yea causal inflation one could say perhaps. What I am alluding to most is that principles come first and have to be resolved prior to that which goes by them ~ or something to that effect. So if we see the pool of infinity as a kinda melting pot, then all things are stretched to the full which would ‘naturally’ work things out to the best options. This is why when we realise principles fully, they are more perfect than course reality that follows them.
Why are any of those three evil? I don’t think I understand the question. One must have a goal or desired result, in order to make a wise decision. I think the kindest of all three would be A, and the cruelest B.
Bringing someone into this world, to me, is the greatest thing a human could possibly do (A). Taking someone out of life, after they’ve had a chance to experience and understand what they’re going to lose, is very cruel (B). Something that is completely ignorant to life and what it is to exist, will feel no pain at the missed opportunity, hence it’s neutral (C).
