Life is a waste of time and effort (mostly)

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. It seems to me that Pro has a simple main argument. In determining value, you must weigh the profits verses the cost. Because humans spend so much time working and sleeping, their time for leisure is minimal (at best, 1/3). Since everyone dies, no possible reward can be worth the price of dying. So, life is a doomed endeavor that shouldn't be attempted. This is my opponent's argument in a nutshell, and he claims I must provide a goal/reason that can outweigh death. In that case I'm going to go with life itself; one can have many goals in their lifetime. Before we begin, I'd like to point out that the time references Pro provided were useful, though definitely not applicable to all beings. For instance, those born into a rich family might spend far more time on leisure (and not working at all) then an average citizen. In that case, "life" is still very much worthwhile to those individuals. Additionally, many people ENJOY their jobs (especially athletes and other celebrities) meaning even the time they spend working can be considered leisurely. However I'd like to offer another philosophical perspective for the sake of discussion in this debate. Objectivists believe that the purpose of life isn't to perpetuate life but to perpetuate one's values. In other words, life is the instrument we use to implement our values in the reality we share. For instance, suppose I was stranded on a boat with my son and there was only one life jacket. I might give that life jacket to my son, sacrificing my own life in the process. However my sacrifice enabled my son to live, which was a perpetuation of my greatest value (my son's life). So, life was incredibly useful -- in fact, necessary -- in order to perpetuate that value. I might consider life worthwhile because I was able to endorse that value. So here we see the fundamental problem with Pro's argument: He says that in order to determine value, you must weigh profit vs. cost. However you cannot determine values or HAVE values without life itself. Ayn Rand said, "To speak of 'value' as apart from 'life' is worse than a contradiction in terms. It is only the concept of ‘Life' that makes the concept of ‘Value' possible" [1]. So, even if one valued death over life, that value would be non-existent without life itself. Therefore the concept of life trumps the concept of value, as life is the ULTIMATE value. While working might not be a fun endeavor, life is about more than the 5-8 hours one usually gets to spend per day on leisure. Life is not just about enjoying your time. Again, life is functional for perpetuating values and goals. If there is something you want to do in the world, your life is imperative for that goal. Moreover the 1/3 of time humans spend sleeping is not a drawback; it's a necessity to sustain life. In other to be alive, one must sleep. And, in order to enjoy their lives, one usually must have the monetary means to do so (i.e. the choice to work). By choosing to work, one is assuming the responsibility and hardship of that endeavor in exchange for the opportunity (funds) to enjoy their leisure time. So, while Pro makes it seem as if life is not worthwhile because one often works, he's forgettnig the fact that working is a CHOICE - a choice that many make because they deem life to overall be worthwhile, thus making work itself worthwhile. Their choice proves that they value life, in addition to the reality that life made that value (of life) possible. Now let's consider the notion that life is not worthwhile because one dies. I'm not sure I understand this logic. Is watching a movie not worthwhile simply because the movie eventually ends? Is sex not worthwhile because eventually one reaches climax and then the experience is over? Certainly not. Obviously it's the "in between" and experience itself that people enjoy. People value life despite the good, bad and ugly. They consider the concept of existence to be superior to non-existence (death). The proof is that people continue on with their lives instead of committing suicide. Additionally, I've already offered some insight in opposition to my opponent's point that nothing is worth dying for (or the price of dying). In one example, I explained how the perpetuation of my value to give my son the only life jacket made my life a tool in saving my son's life. If I value saving my son's life over my own, then clearly something was worth dying for. In conclusion, I'll say that existence itself is superior to death. With life you get to *experience* and with death you do not. Even if some experiences are bad, there are generally more positive and neutral experiences then the devastatingly negative. Every agent (individual) should get to determine whether or not life is worth living. Because most people choose to live, it proves that life has the greater value. I've also proven how values are not even possible without life. So far, my opponent's only argument is that death is superior to life because life is not worth living on a cost-benefit analysis. However that seems to only reflect his opinion and not the billions of people who continue to choose life every day. While everyone is in fact doomed to die, it's no different then a movie being "doomed" to end. The experience along the way is a worthwhile endeavor to allow one to perpetuate their values, and have experiences through existence itself. I'll send this debate back over to Pro for now... good luck! [1] http://www.noblesoul.com...