Discussion Efilism - The belief that Nothing is better than Something

[Sixfeetunder]

It depends on the person. Some people would rather be alive because they enjoy life. But for some of us, it would have been better to have never been born at all.

 

[netrezven]

There is no good or bad in nature, only balance and disbalance. Only in nature. But when we talk about most of the things we humans do - then definitely evil is part of us. Maybe we are the remains of an ancient alien experiment, which went completely wrong and they evacuated the planet leaving us here. For sure efilism makes some senсе.

 

[Armadillo]

How are you determining these things? What parameters are you using?

I'm just saying that stating that human life is always negative or always positive is a false dichotomy.
There are more than 7 billion people on this planet, good luck trying to find a statement about human nature and behaviour that is true for everyone.

I think that we can all agree that not everyone suffers the same amount of pain during their lifetime, some people have it worse than us, some better.
My objection is to the "no life is worth living" or even "the majority of humans have a life not worth living" statements.

If an old man on his deathbed says that his life has been great and full of joy, I will assume that he is telling the truth. Just because I can't feel what another person feels it doesn't invalidate the truth of another human perception.
Note how I'm talking about perceptions.
The fact that one person's life is worth living to him/her falls in the realm of perceptions.
We don't feel the same about the same things.

Justifying my last point is more difficult ("the majority of human lives are worth living") as it is justifying the opposite statement ("the majority of human lives are not worth living"), but since the majority of people will tell you that to them life is a positive thing, again, I have no reason to invalidate the altough subjective reality of another person.

So based on the efilist/neg. utilitarian standard, the "negative value" of badness/evil [however defined] is so much greater than any "positive value" of good [again, doesn't matter according to which definition], to such a large, obvious extent, that it is pointless to weight them against each other. I think people cannot claim their own life are worth-having without suspending this logic. Overlooking it. Rationalizing. etc.
Like @Logic said, societal indoctrination on the "sanctity of life" is mostly to blame.
That moral argument is elegantly laid out in this ~90m debate by David Benatar in support of antinatalism, confronting Jordan Peterson.

-"people cannot claim their own life are worth living without suspending this logic"

That's not logic though. Saying that even the tiniest amount of suffering is to be valued more than any amount of pleasure is arbitrary. I know negative utilitarians try to justify this, but IMHO fail to do so.

Let's take carnivorism for example. Looking a cow in the eyes and thinking "the pleasure that I'll have from eating a hamburger made out of your flesh justifies your suffering and inhumane death" is of course cruelty, but is cruelty irrational when the other being has no saying in the matter?

I've heard the debate between JBP and Benatar and I don't agree with any of the two, Benatar doesn't really solve the asymmetry problem for one.

The indoctrination on the sanctity of life is of course extremely irrational but so are a lot of the positions of efilists.

You have to prove that bad is always more valuable than good and not assuming it as an axiomatic truth.

 

[Zzzzz]

There is no objective purpose to life. Considering we live in a world where it is impossible to prevent all suffering, people need to stop having children. It is a imposition. If we can justify imposing life than we can justify imposing death also. The best thing we can do is allow the current generation to live without imposing new life . There is no suffering or desire in non existence. The animals will still suffer, unless we sterilize them all.

 

[Logic]

I'm just saying that stating that human life is always negative or always positive is a false dichotomy.
There are more than 7 billion people on this planet, good luck trying to find a statement about human nature and behaviour that is true for everyone.

I think that we can all agree that not everyone suffers the same amount of pain during their lifetime, some people have it worse than us, some better.
My objection is to the "no life is worth living" or even "the majority of humans have a life not worth living" statements.

If an old man on his deathbed says that his life has been great and full of joy, I will assume that he is telling the truth. Just because I can't feel what another person feels it doesn't invalidate the truth of another human perception.
Note how I'm talking about perceptions.
The fact that one person's life is worth living to him/her falls in the realm of perceptions.
We don't feel the same about the same things.

Justifying my last point is more difficult ("the majority of human lives are worth living") as it is justifying the opposite statement ("the majority of human lives are not worth living"), but since the majority of people will tell you that to them life is a positive thing, again, I have no reason to invalidate the altough subjective reality of another person.




-"people cannot claim their own life are worth living without suspending this logic"

That's not logic though. Saying that even the tiniest amount of suffering is to be valued more than any amount of pleasure is arbitrary. I know negative utilitarians try to justify this, but IMHO fail to do so.

Let's take carnivorism for example. Looking a cow in the eyes and thinking "the pleasure that I'll have from eating a hamburger made out of your flesh justifies your suffering and inhumane death" is of course cruelty, but is cruelty irrational when the other being has no saying in the matter?

I've heard the debate between JBP and Benatar and I don't agree with any of the two, Benatar doesn't really solve the asymmetry problem for one.

The indoctrination on the sanctity of life is of course extremely irrational but so are a lot of the positions of efilists.

You have to prove that bad is always more valuable than good and not assuming it as an axiomatic truth.

I think it's pretty obvious we don't have enough rules, laws and information to even determine the parameters much less solve whether or not the human condition is worth it or not. As I said before I don't think it's reasonable to trust the average person judgment that their life is worth living due to so many ovbious biases that distort judgment etc. If you set bad = to good it seems obvious bad outweighs especially if you include animal and terrible suffering etc. However I respect their right to think what they want.

 

[Minudah]

The simulation should be destroyed. Torture experiments shouldn't exist, lab rats don't consent

 

[Armadillo]

I think it's pretty obvious we don't have enough rules, laws and information to even determine the parameters much less solve whether or not the human condition is worth it or not. As I said before I don't think it's reasonable to trust the average person judgment that their life is worth living due to so many ovbious biases that distort judgment etc. If you set bad = to good it seems obvious bad outweighs especially if you include animal and terrible suffering etc. However I respect their right to think what they want.

I don't entirely disagree, but if you have to determine if the life of a person is worth living the best way, since we don't have better instruments to know this type of truth, is to ask said person the question.
The response could be biased, and therefore incorrect at times, but I think it's still going to be more accurate that assuming it by outting yourself in that person shoes and imagining if it feels good or bad.

If we generalize the statement to all sentient life on Earth, I agree with you, even if, again, I can't know it for sure I can make educate guesses.
I see more suffering than anything in the natural world: animals getting eaten alive, dying of wounds, starving, having to run from predators every day, being ill etc.
I think that thanks to technology and some sweet fabricated delusions humans have it generally better.