Why? Why live so you can "reduce" suffering? Struggle for a pointless goal? It makes no sense. I always see people on the efilism subreddit talking about how we "have to save everyone from suffering" and think why? Why deluded yourself into thinking you can save the world form itself? It makes no sense. What, because I'm more intelligent than other animals I have to struggle just to prevent/ end their lives? That's dumb, I have no duty to anyone. People say it's pointless to be happy and have fun but it's just as pointless to try and end a world that has no intentions of ending anytime soon? Wasting away huts so you can MAYBE end all life? That's disgusting imo
Though doing so would be ideal, I don't think proponents of negative utilitarianism think they can end all suffering. Their objective is to minimise suffering. Which we can all do to some extent.
If you want to kill yourself it's probably because you're in some kind of pain (even if that pain is just apathy or a sense of purposelessness). Suicide is a positive action, so if you're acting to eradicate this pain, it means you're assigning a negative value to pain. And if pain is a bad thing then it stands to reason you should want less of it to exist in general.
If you want to kill yourself it's probably because you're in some kind of pain (even if that pain is just apathy or a sense of purposelessness). Suicide is a positive action, so if you're acting to eradicate this pain, it means you're assigning a negative value to pain. And if pain is a bad thing then it stands to reason you should want less of it to exist in general.
I mean, perhaps you don't. I suppose that's why metaethics exists as a field—because there are no explicit answers to the question of what our moral duties are.
Idk I just feel like if I can't enjoy little things like games and movies, or other simple things( cause I don't really ask for much) then why continue my suffering? Plus I don't think it's possible to minimize sufferin, especially since reducing suffering is just prevent/ending lives. Live to just to make other possibly die or prevent lives? I'm not going to be a martyr for life. I'm always anxious because I feel wrong for finding joy in things.
I don't think you should feel wrong for finding joy in things. And I don't think preventing or ending lives is the only way you can minimise suffering, even according to negative utilitarians. You could volunteer, or donate to philanthropic organisations, or raise awareness for good causes (assuming you're able). Whether or not you're obligated to do this instead of dying is a less straightforward question. I think that should be your decision.
_Camille_
it's over
- Jun 2, 2024
- 4
Negative utilitarianism differs from deontological ethics in that it recognizes that no actions are inherently right or wrong, but instead their moral status depends on whether they increase or decrease suffering of sentient beings. It doesn't condemn actions which have no obvious influence on the amount/intensity of suffering of sentient beings, such as playing games or watching movies. Theoretically it would mean that they are morally neutral.
I would argue however that from a purely negative utilitarian standpoint, it would be moral to do things you enjoy if it allows you to keep on living and undertake other actions to prevent sentient beings from suffering. It seems to me that one shouldn't accept the view that they are masters of themselves and are able to immediately do whatever they will. The vast majority of people won't be able to just read about negative utilitarianism one day and then devote their entire lives to reducing suffering. It simply wouldn't be possible, as humans have evolved to do whatever is needed to pass on their genes, which usually means being selfish, not to care about suffering of all sentient beings. I believe that the laws which govern human nature are just as strict as the laws of physics - they are the very same laws operating on a different level, so to speak, and trying to go against them on purpose would be counterproductive. I think that anyone who subscribes to negative utilitarianism should focus on doing what they can, not strive for an unachievable ideal and do less good as a result, as that would be against the utilitarian principle.
I understand that this suffering-focused view of life may seem cold and simply unappealing. At first glance it may look like the ultimate goal of negative utilitarianism is unachievable, thus making any effort towards it pointless, but it really is just a matter of what one focuses at, not what negative utilitarianism actually demands one to do. Being realistic about what you can do is crucial to actually doing anything.
It is also worth noting that, since presumably you are also a sentient being, reducing your own potential suffering aligns with the goal of negative utilitarianism - that includes taking care of yourself both physically and mentally.
I hope I could be at least somewhat helpful.
I would argue however that from a purely negative utilitarian standpoint, it would be moral to do things you enjoy if it allows you to keep on living and undertake other actions to prevent sentient beings from suffering. It seems to me that one shouldn't accept the view that they are masters of themselves and are able to immediately do whatever they will. The vast majority of people won't be able to just read about negative utilitarianism one day and then devote their entire lives to reducing suffering. It simply wouldn't be possible, as humans have evolved to do whatever is needed to pass on their genes, which usually means being selfish, not to care about suffering of all sentient beings. I believe that the laws which govern human nature are just as strict as the laws of physics - they are the very same laws operating on a different level, so to speak, and trying to go against them on purpose would be counterproductive. I think that anyone who subscribes to negative utilitarianism should focus on doing what they can, not strive for an unachievable ideal and do less good as a result, as that would be against the utilitarian principle.
I understand that this suffering-focused view of life may seem cold and simply unappealing. At first glance it may look like the ultimate goal of negative utilitarianism is unachievable, thus making any effort towards it pointless, but it really is just a matter of what one focuses at, not what negative utilitarianism actually demands one to do. Being realistic about what you can do is crucial to actually doing anything.
It is also worth noting that, since presumably you are also a sentient being, reducing your own potential suffering aligns with the goal of negative utilitarianism - that includes taking care of yourself both physically and mentally.
I hope I could be at least somewhat helpful.
Tobacco
Efilist. Possible promortalist.
- Jan 14, 2023
- 196
I don't know about you, but if I'm going to be forced to stay on this earth, at least I'd like to think I'm helping reduce other people's suffering. I don't have my ctb method yet and I feel trapped because I have a family that cares about me.
it's a personal philosophy. anti-natalism just takes to life a probabilistic condition, mainly that if the probability of deviating from a pleasurable life -- by means of the accretion of non-trivial pain -- is great, then it is moral to abstain from having children. most anti-natalists justify their case on the basis of their own experiences, which naturally lead a person to blaming their parents for bringing them into the world. so it is conducive to a gamble on the part of the parent.
if you couple the anti-natalist clause with a stronger condition, like that of negative utilitarianism, then it's much easier to argue in favour of the former.
if you couple the anti-natalist clause with a stronger condition, like that of negative utilitarianism, then it's much easier to argue in favour of the former.
sserafim
brighter than the sun, that’s just me
- Sep 13, 2023
- 9,009
Doesn't your post contradict your comment here? You say you have "no duty to anyone", yet say that people have a "moral obligation" to commit suicide. Do you believe that you're exempt from this "obligation"?
Last edited:
