Photo by "Blake Weyland" on Unsplash
Updates
+1 y
Thank you all for your valuable perspectives.
How do you feel about pro-mortalism?
Photo by "Blake Weyland" on Unsplash
Photo by "Blake Weyland" on Unsplash
Superb Opinion
"If you're suffering, then you should die" or "Suffering isn't an experience you should tolerate and instead you should seek to die"
I don't know. For me it's hard to see this premise as anything other than short-sighted and completely disconnected from reality.
I mean... It's not like you have extra lives in the first place, and nobody knows what happens after death (it's probably an infinite void like before you were born) so whether or not your short life is purely suffering or not, it IS the only other thing you have aside from an infinite void, so maybe spice up your dreadfully boring eternity while you can.
In my experience suffering seems to be pretty inseparable from life. Also, when do you draw the line of what is "too much" suffering? Is it "any" suffering? We'd all be dead at birth or at least some time before we could even think or remember. That's clearly not the right answer because I as well as probably most people are very satisfied with our choice to still be alive after so damn much of it [suffering].
How do you know what is objectively enough suffering to cut your losses? You probably haven't ever had something SERIOUSLY traumatic or painful happen to you before, like having your leg chopped off, being raped or losing everything you have. The most traumatic thing you've exer experienced is logically the most severe, 10/10 form of suffering you can accurately conceive of, which still might not be that big of a deal.
Then there's the question of how much good experiences would it take to outweigh negative experiences. I'm pretty happy with the suffering:enjoyment ratio in my life, so I can at least attest that it's possible to make the suffering worthwhile. I'm aware that some people have pretty crappy lives (a worse good:bad experience ratio than myself), but I'm also aware that some of those who have worse ratios than me have found themselves much more content than I, despite having an objectively worse life. Think of anyone living in the middle ages or far enough into the past. Or even to some holocaust survivors in more recent history (Victor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning is a God-tier book on this subject/ resilience and very short too).
In the end, I think it's up to the person living through the suffering to decide for themselves. But you have a LOT of power over things you do that make suffering worthwhile. You also have a lot of power over becoming more resilient (metabolizing suffering as it comes, as well as reducing its overall potency in your experience).
Practically speaking, I think suffering is a bit of a non-problem in 99% of cases, so why let it kill you?
Most Helpful Opinions
-
That sounds very similar to me to antinatalism. I thoroughly disagree with it to the point where I tried to talk out a YouTuber I followed out of suicide (a very bright and deeply educated one in philosophy) but he either killed himself anyway or disappeared from the internet permanently after his last video saying goodbye.
Morality, as I see it, comes fundamentally from resisting and balancing our short-temptations in pursuit of a longer-term goal we can actually fulfill. It's not about caving into them. It's challenging and requires resisting short-term temptations to avoid stealing out of the cookie jar, or cheating on a partner, or whatnot. What use is a moral code that conflates the most tempting options with the best ones?
I see nothing resemble morality or ethics in those who say, "We are tempted strongly by these things, therefore we should do it regardless of the long-term consequences." The only use I find for a moral or ethical code of conduct is one that says, "despite our short-term temptations, we should resist them in favor of some longer-term goal."
Um. What? You'd have to go into more detail because if that were the case, the human race wouldn't survive at all. And quite frankly, it sounds a little weak. Overcoming suffering and adversity is much better. It breeds fortitude.
This philosophy sounds like giving up and doing so easily. A little emo, in my opinion.
-
You've written that if one "can" (i. e. merely has the potential to) experience suffering that one should give up and end one's life, and not if one actually IS experiencing suffering. No, this doesn't appeal to me at all, because it's weak, defeatist, and it neglects all the GOOD things that life has to offer.
What Girls & Guys Said
7
Opinion
38Opinion
-
The position behind promortalism is as follows
1. Pessimism is sound
2. A life without living ought to be ended
Hence: ending your life is a moral position.
While I disagree largely with the position of pessimism in principle (there are a variety of things that makes my life worth living in principle and thus I can imagine other people may have similar opinions) assuming it is a valid and sound argument there are several objections that can be made against promortalism.
First, there perhaps is a greater amount of suffering than pleasure in life but that does not entail a negative value to life in it’s entirety. Assume for instance that someone, at the end of their life, was given a great pleasure such as winning the lottery, getting a dedication or some award or prize. If the individual would have died young they may have not experienced the award at the end of their life. This does entail experiencing the pain that comes with life but a life of pure suffering without any positive value is something that is difficult to presume. -
I believe that through suffering we grow into stronger people. Depending on how you cope you can also grow into a better person… or worse. A world without suffering would be hell to me… imagine never having to try and still getting the best possible outcome… besides this when we share in others happiness we can easily get lost in the moment but by sharing in suffering we’re forced to ask why me. Why am I suffering and how can I stop suffering… and by understanding this suffering we can empathize with others suffering similarly. We can guide them out of their suffering and create bonds.
Sadly humanity’s so god damn stupid and selfish to do this or I just don’t know the right people… I ducking hate humanity and would love to watch it burn. I win either way. -
So, this is a very new philosophy (and I'm using that term very loosely here) from what I can tell it seems to have originated on sites like reddit, which would sound dangerous enough without even reading what the central point is.
Suffering is subjective, but part of life. If is not possible to avoid all suffering. I think there could be some arguments made in the case of suffering that will result in death anyway, like a terminal cancer patient opting for an assisted death to avoid pain that will only get worse. But that's very individualized.
But the idea that death is always better than pain? I don't agree - 9K opinions shared on Other topic.
first of all, the name for what you described is stupid in my opinion. it should be called "suicidalism" more correctly, cause we're all mortal either way independend of our position towards that fact.
secondly: i think to a very limited extend, the premise is acceptable. case being for example that you suffer a rare condition or injury that can not be healed or improved upon and it will leave you suffering unbearably untill the natural end of your days. in this very specific case, it may be ethical. otherwise not. - 8K opinions shared on Other topic.
My problem with it is when adherents to it start applying it to others. There's this young philosopher on youtube that I like listening to who once said something that I vehemently disagree with - he stated that if he had a choice to end all life (because life is suffering) then he would.
No matter how strongly you believe that death is a preferable alternative to even the slightest form of suffering, you have no right to impose that view on anyone else. - 821 opinions shared on Other topic.
No. I can't respect people who claim to strongly believe something yet they don't abide by their beliefs. They remind me of the old men who lead terrorists groups... telling their followers that it's a virtue to be a suicide bomber. And nobody asks why the old guy never blew himself up but he has a mansion full of sexy servants and comforts.
-
I need some clarification. I'm confused on how to read this. Are you saying in certain circumstances it's better to put someone out of their misery. As an act of mercy? Or that one should have the right to end their own life at a time of their own choosing in a manner under their own direction and of desired method.
-
Seems pretty damn narrow-sighted. Life is full of suffering, it's the little good things that make it worth living, and the suffering just contrasts with the good parts to make them even better. Sounds like a philosophy that only makes sense to depressed people.
-
It’s worth pointing out that while “better for a being” would seem to be a unique thing, it can depend on exactly what is under discussion. For example, preferences and hedonic welfare may diverge, different preferences within the same brain may diverge, preferences of present vs. future selves may diverge, and so on.
- 787 opinions shared on Other topic.
this philosophy sounds like a fear of being alive in general but life is pain, so with that logic none of us should exist and never should have? 😶
-
So... basically, you should just kill yourself because life entails suffering? But what about the joy?
- 306 opinions shared on Other topic.
If that means people who are terminally ill and in incurable physical pain, then that's the most ethical way. But if that includes teenagers who are depressed and think they'll never be happy again, then that's a stupid ideology.
-
There is a 'you can only measure happiness in contrast to the suffering/pain you have experienced'.
However you turn it, though, it is absolutely unnecessary to suffer/train by suffering, those healthy.
The criminally insane, that I do not know (and prefer not to be involved in any way)
Whether life eternal exists, whether you can actually shrink into a baby under conditions xyz given the time to go through all of that - one would hope. -
That's the stupidest thing i've heard in a long time. Joy and pain are two sides of being alive, like yin and yang. This sounds an awful lot like defeatist nihilism and ef that, rage against the dying of the light brah
-
I love how every retard needs to come up with a new term to describe something that already has a word because someone smarter was a thousand steps ahead of them already.
The term is nihilism. That "philosophy" is just nihilism straight up. - 1.9K opinions shared on Other topic.
Suffering is a part of life. So anyone who truly thinks this way shall already have taken themselves out so i guess we don't really have to think about it anymore.
-
Depends on the severity of the pain. If a stub my toe?
No don't kill me please
But if it's a never ending pain of my life being boring as fuck and all I wanna do is sleep. Please take me out of my misery - 1.6K opinions shared on Other topic.
It's utter bullshit and just an academic way of saying
"Cynical prick, mentally unstable, but don't you dare discredit me for it". It's not a real "philosophy" - 1.3K opinions shared on Other topic.
Suffering is unavoidable, so by that logic all life should cease to exist, which to me is a ridiculous stance to have on life.
Plus if you are suffering, then it makes more sense to end the suffering, not yourself. -
I think life is meaningless without pain and suffering, so I don't think just because one suffers, they should automatically be mercy-killed for it.
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
