It is better to have never been

Thanks, Con. P1: The context – A brief history Counter-arguments addressed under A1. P2: Discomfort is bad Arguments not enough to affirm premise My opponent’s claim of ‘I never showed discomfort as bad’ is flatly false. Under the subheading of ‘Discomfort is bad’, I specifically outlined why discomfort is bad: “…Would anyone prefer to live a life wherein there was no attaining things that they desired, OR have a life wherein there was no desire to attain them in the first place? As you can see, the discomfort, as a result of desire, is bad.” Feeling only discomfort, and feeling nothing (neutral), are different. It is also obvious that no one would want to live a life of forever not getting things. Could you imagine training every day for a place in a tennis tournament, yet never making it? 12 hours every day for 20 years. Would that life be one which others would envy? Would you want to live that life – always failing to meet your desires? Would not that life be filled with heartache and sorrow? Would it not be better to not exist? If feeling nothing is neutral (neither good nor bad; there is nothing to value), then we can determine that because discomfort is less desirable, that it is bad. Social norms inconsistent with ‘States of Discomfort’ Con and I agree that the need to have a career, is in itself a discomfort. However, even with this new career, even though it relieves plenty of discomforts, there are still other discomforts that are not fulfilled, unrelated to this one. Hence, you are making yourself less discomfortable, due to there being other discomforts that are not fulfilled. As for the later example Con gives, again, the complexity of the scenario is an issue. Creating memories in itself does nothing, but wanting to remember them, is a different discomfort to that of the discomfort where memories were created under. In other words, multiple discomforts can exist at once. Again, you must have the discomfort before the comfort. Overall, to have a poisonous cancer cut out is a huge relief, because it was such a burden. The relieving of an itch is hardly noteworthy, because it was hardly a discomfort. They cancel, as you can see. Implications and semantics of ‘relief’ My opponent claims that relieving discomfort is not the equivalent of never having it. My opponent then makes the values at play ambiguous, by using complex examples with context, such a massage. The problem with this is that there will be other instances of discomfort that have been unaccounted for, hence the sudden overall positive trade of the situation. For example, if someone had a stressful day at work (mental tension), and had a lot of muscle tension (physical tension), then a good massage will relieve both discomforts, hence creating a positive trade, for that instance. To determine the true nature of things, there must be only one variable. The role of boredom in discomfort We are designed to be motivated, not satisfied. We intentionally create discomforts (desires) so that we may relieve ourselves of the discomfort of boredom. “In the continual becoming, of that of our being… Unrest is the mark of existence” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer This is why punishment, like solitary confinement, is saved for only serious crimes. A prison inmate in solitary confinement talks about the experience -- how he wrote letters to himself, pretending to be a lady in New York [9]. Boredom is discomfort. A1: Unintelligent Design We are not built to care about pleasure/hurting I argued that evolution does not care about discomfort/comfort, NOT that “we” do not care. We are purposeless altogether Also, we are NOT purposeless altogether. My opponent thinks that because we serve no objective purpose in the universe (which I agree with), that purpose cannot be generated by humans. Humans are creating value. There is no inherent value in a chair. But when someone is tired, his/her perception makes the chair valuable, so long as the comfort of it is recognised. There is now purpose in the chair’s existence. Sophistication in humans Yes, despite the dreadful origins, humans have the capacity for sophistication – to a point. However, seeing that humans are only chasing perceptual value (things that supposedly bring comfort), rather than seeking real value in itself (comfort), this sophistication is always going to be limited. There will be biological imperatives, like the urge to relieve discomfort. There is no sophistication in the creation of discomfort; there is only sophistication in dealing with it. "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants" ~ Arthur Schopenhauer Accusation of special pleading Whilst there is no objective/intrinsic value to life, meaning can be generated through the human psychology. There is a difference between a relaxing massage, and having a pack of dogs rip your stomach and intestines out. The sentient creature’s welfare is of real value. Preventing that welfare state from discomfort has real value. Special pleading would only occur if I argued there is no value altogether, and then then for value here, which is clearly not the case. A3: What the real impact is ***WARNING: Graphic links*** My opponent has strawmanned my argument here, arguing against an ‘overpopulation’ argument. My actual purpose in making this argument, is that perpetuating sentient life is causing a lot of suffering (extreme discomfort). An estimated 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, including 91% of the Jewish population of Poland [1]. According to Davidowicz, “about 500,000 [Jews] died in the ghettos of Eastern Europe of hunger, disease, exhaustion and as victims of random terror and reprisals” [2]. What on Earth could be so great that it justifies risking such systematic extermination? http://www.familyholiday.net... Throughout Africa, “more than 2,500 children are dying each day”, due to no clean drinking water being available. “When people are desperately thirsty, they are willing to take the risk of disease by consuming water that may not be healthy” [3]. Diseases like malaria, which causes “fevers, shivering, chills and headache”, and somewhat commonly, death [4]. Disease like trypanosomiasis, wherein infection symptoms start with fevers and headaches, and escalate to confusion and serious trouble with sleeping [5]. http://gardenofshades.uiams.com... Since 2000, the Israel-Palestine conflict has killed ~1,800 innocent children, ~8,500 people and injured a whopping 68,337 people [6]. This war is happening RIGHT NOW. http://www.haaretz.com... And since I am speaking of right now, 121 million people worldwide suffer from depression [8]. Even if we, as humans, managed to bring about world peace, we would still have natural disasters that are devastating. The Boxing Day tsunami of 2004 saw 275,000 people killed, with a further 600,000 people losing their livelihoods [7]. There is not a word in the English language that would accurately describe the scale of suffering experienced in this single incident. http://www.glogster.com... Imagine what happened to humans historically! This is the product of unintelligent design, and even with intelligent humans, who understand the kinds of serious suffering people can experience, WE STILL have events like these! It is easy to dismiss these almost incomprehensible, miserable tragedies that occur in our world, especially from the comfort of your home. But, does it not matter how many people are killed/suffer/mourn/die painfully etc.? How is this justified? Why do we need to create the need to fix these things, in the first place? A4: Life is imposed My argument here does not suppose that life is bad. Rather, it presuppose that life can be bad. The fact that life can be bad, that you really do not know what a life is going to be like until it is lived, puts you in no position to judge whether the life should be lived. You have no right to say whether a life should be lived, because you are ignorant of the vital information which would allow you to make such a decision. Also, to say that a person always has the option of ending his/her life, misses the obvious fact that discomfort would have to be endured BEFORE this decision was made, and hence becomes a decision of lessening the discomfort, which is still bad, overall. CA1: Nihilistic Existentialism is a more accurate descriptor of life I have argued that discomfort is bad, discomfort comes before comfort, and that life perpetually creates discomfort. If these contentions hold, then this argument is irrelevant to the debate. From the Round 2: CA2: Humans needed to cause extinction properly Even if this is the case, my opponent’s argument implicitly concedes that it is better to have never been. All my opponent’s argument here does is contest the method in which to do this. CA3: Future improvement of humans My opponent offered nothing in the realm of restructuring the motivation mechanism which gives us meaning to life. My opponent’s arguments and sources pertain only to bettering ways to relieve discomfort, rather than getting rid of the need itself. References: [1] http://www.historyplace.com... [2] Lucy S. Davidowicz, The Holocaust and the Historian (1981), pp. 12-13. [3] http://www.missionariesofafrica.org... [4] http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.ifamericansknew.org... [7] http://www.thebcom.org... [8] http://www.biomedcentral.com... [9] http://aeon.co...