Guilty of being alive

[-less-]

I can't shake the thought that it's wrong for me to exist.

Everything I do to sustain my life inevitably has a cost to the people, animals, and environment I exist alongside of. It feels futile to even try to live "ethically" because suffering and exploitation is so tightly interwoven into the functioning of our modern society and the dog-eat-dog nature of the natural world. But then I wonder if this negative utilitarian lens I'm looking at this through is just motivated reasoning to align my interpretation of life with my trauma-induced feelings of guilt and shame. Then again, there's no reason both can't be true.

It is hard for me to really blame myself or others for being alive, though. We didn't choose for the world to be this way or to be born into it. We aren't purely rational agents that can just flip our survival instincts to "off" and opt out so easily. We are animals wired for survival, even when the desire to die becomes overwhelming.

But does that fact make living okay if I "know better"? Do I know better or am I just trying to convince myself that my guilt is rational? Or is the reverse true and most people only come to the conclusion that it's better to live than die because their reasoning is motivated by deeply embedded survival instincts? Would the world be better off with or without me?

I've been struggling to sort all this out, but it's been so hard to have an honest conversation about this with anyone else. Most people think this line of reasoning is ridiculous because "of course" it's better to live than die, so they just won't take the questions seriously.

I hope it's better for me to exist, but I don't know. I can't figure this out. I hate living in a world where suffering is so unavoidable.

 

[timf]

If you consider that we are all born helpless, ignorant, and selfish you wouldn't expect much from humans. One might expect humans to operate at the level of other animals and contend with and devour each other. There are different trajectories one can take in life. Some choose the more animalistc path of consumption. Others become more introverted and contemplative inclining themselves to learning more and more. Still others see a path of seeking to help others. Life may consist of more than a balance sheet of who has a right to live.

You have worth now simply as a thinking organism. You have future worth as you learn or find way to help others. That you have these concerns is a testimony to your sensitivity. It is not uncommon for a young person taking a class in philosophy to consider suicide because he can't prove he exists. This can happen with young people who do not have a foundation for themselves yet. Many young people leave home with a personal foundation they have inherited from their family. Others may not have anything very solid. If you are considering these issues, you may wish to also work on building a foundation for yourself such as with a religion.

You may want to pick a religion simply for its utility and later change or tweak it as you choose.-The big questions of existence can be difficult to face with just a philosophy. You may also wish to cultivate all sorts of relationships. Sometimes those who feel naked in front of the universe are often those who did not have a nurturing or loving family life growing up. This deficit can sometimes be compensated by cultivating friendships often through social activities.

 

[Vacuous]

But then I wonder if this negative utilitarian lens I'm looking at this through is just motivated reasoning to align my interpretation of life with my trauma-induced feelings of guilt and shame

Probably. Your perspective is incompatible with reality. Nobody could possibly last feeling what you've described.

Perhaps you should instead adopt a perspective built upon the acknowledgement of your privilege and gifts. You are in a unique position to touch this world with the magic that is in you. It's a position that many would do unimaginable things to occupy. You, therefore, shouldn't feel guilty about your state of life. You should feel guilty about denying yourself the actualization of your potential.

It's about you only. Always.

 

[isolatedl111]

I can't shake the thought that it's wrong for me to exist.

Everything I do to sustain my life inevitably has a cost to the people, animals, and environment I exist alongside of. It feels futile to even try to live "ethically" because suffering and exploitation is so tightly interwoven into the functioning of our modern society and the dog-eat-dog nature of the natural world. But then I wonder if this negative utilitarian lens I'm looking at this through is just motivated reasoning to align my interpretation of life with my trauma-induced feelings of guilt and shame. Then again, there's no reason both can't be true.

It is hard for me to really blame myself or others for being alive, though. We didn't choose for the world to be this way or to be born into it. We aren't purely rational agents that can just flip our survival instincts to "off" and opt out so easily. We are animals wired for survival, even when the desire to die becomes overwhelming.

But does that fact make living okay if I "know better"? Do I know better or am I just trying to convince myself that my guilt is rational? Or is the reverse true and most people only come to the conclusion that it's better to live than die because their reasoning is motivated by deeply embedded survival instincts? Would the world be better off with or without me?

I've been struggling to sort all this out, but it's been so hard to have an honest conversation about this with anyone else. Most people think this line of reasoning is ridiculous because "of course" it's better to live than die, so they just won't take the questions seriously.

I hope it's better for me to exist, but I don't know. I can't figure this out. I hate living in a world where suffering is so unavoidable.

Life is suffering.

 

[Hvergelmir]

Everything I do to sustain my life inevitably has a cost to the people, animals, and environment I exist alongside of. It feels futile to even try to live "ethically" because suffering and exploitation is so tightly interwoven into the functioning of our modern society and the dog-eat-dog nature of the natural world. But then I wonder if this negative utilitarian lens I'm looking at this through is just motivated reasoning to align my interpretation of life with my trauma-induced feelings of guilt and shame.
[...]
But does that fact make living okay if I "know better"? Do I know better or am I just trying to convince myself that my guilt is rational? Or is the reverse true and most people only come to the conclusion that it's better to live than die because their reasoning is motivated by deeply embedded survival instincts?

The questions and perspectives you're struggling with are all valid in their own subjective rights. To declare one perspective 'truth' would be naive.
It's worth to note, however, that in this "dog-eat-dog" world, dogs very rarely eat dogs. There's a lot of love and cooperation in nature, coexisting with suffering and exploitation.
Most of the universe seem to be empty space, barren rocks, and gas clouds. To me, nature is very precious, even with its inherent hostilities.

Would the world be better off with or without me?

Cynically speaking, it depends on who you are and what you decide to do. If you want to make a positive impact on the world, it is up to you to do so.
The real question is: What can you do to contribute towards the world you want to see? What would be needed for you to consider yourself valuable?
You have the autonomy to choose for yourself, what to do. So, make yourself valuable.
Focus on things that are in your own sphere of influence. If you demand of individuals to solve universal issues, very few would have the right exist.