TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,686
This is a thought that crossed my mind about a reason why pro-lifers are against CTB. From their perspective, they see it as "losing". This means that they feel that people who CTB have lost or are losing. However, this couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, winning and losing are subjective outcomes depending on one's objectives, goals, and purpose. If one's purpose was to seek death or relief from sentience, relief from suffering, and one successfully does so, then it could be argued that one has prevailed or won (won against one's own survival instinct).
Example 1:
For example someone who has been suffering for the majority of one's own life decides one had enough and wishes to CTB to avoid suffering, then one's objective is to CTB, thus anything other than CTB (to said person) is considered a loss, losing, or failure.
Staying alive is NOT winning from this person's perspective because said person wishes to die and no longer suffering. Instead if said person fails and lives on, it is not a "win", it is a "loss" due to the tortuous nature of sentience. Of course, to the pro-lifer, if said person is "alive" whether it is due to failing to escape sentience or otherwise, they (pro-lifers) see it as a "win" or victory because said person is still around albeit suffering greatly.
Example 2:
In war, (I know some people hate this comparison or example, but it makes sense so I will go with it for analogy and explanation purposes) there are oftenly different objectives depending on which faction or side one is fighting in. Suppose we have two armies fighting on opposing sides, army A and B respectively. Army A's objective is to bleed out the resources of Army B while Army B's objective is complete rout (destruction) Army A. So when the clash happens between the two armies, and Army A manages to bleed out the resources of Army B despite being routed, then objectively speaking from B's point of view, it's a win/victory (due to the destruction and annihilation of A's forces), but from A's point of view, it's also win/victory even though A has lost (been routed), A has fulfilled it's objectives which is to drain and bleed out the resources of B. Sure, it could be argued that A has lost or that B has won, but because A has achieved it's objective it's considered a win for A. It could also be argued that B has lost due to the pyrrhic victory that B has achieved and failing to prevent A from achieving A's objective.
Example 3:
A more light-hearted example is when comes to playing a sports or competition against a vastly superior foe. Depending on one's objectives and motivations for doing so, even knowing that one may very well lose, but have their own personal goals, as long as they are met, fulfilled, accomplished. Suppose an athlete in a track meet competes against another state champion and this mediocre athlete, while talented and good is unlikely to win against the state champion runner, but instead just wishes to see how well he/she fares. Upon competition, the mediocre, but talented athlete is able to compete adequately against the state champ, but still loses, and suppose the goal was just to see how well he/she fares, then that is accomplished even though the mediocre runner lost the competition. To the mediocre athlete, mission and objective has been achieved, thus a win for the mediocre athlete.
Well, these are just a few (among the many more) examples that I can give in terms of winning and losing. The point that I'm getting at here is that winning and losing are both subjective terms, dependent on one's objectives, goals, and mission in mind. What may constitute as a "loss" is not necessarily a "loss" to said person, and a victory or "win" can just be as hollow or inconsequential to the larger picture. Let me know your thoughts on this.
Example 1:
For example someone who has been suffering for the majority of one's own life decides one had enough and wishes to CTB to avoid suffering, then one's objective is to CTB, thus anything other than CTB (to said person) is considered a loss, losing, or failure.
Staying alive is NOT winning from this person's perspective because said person wishes to die and no longer suffering. Instead if said person fails and lives on, it is not a "win", it is a "loss" due to the tortuous nature of sentience. Of course, to the pro-lifer, if said person is "alive" whether it is due to failing to escape sentience or otherwise, they (pro-lifers) see it as a "win" or victory because said person is still around albeit suffering greatly.
Example 2:
In war, (I know some people hate this comparison or example, but it makes sense so I will go with it for analogy and explanation purposes) there are oftenly different objectives depending on which faction or side one is fighting in. Suppose we have two armies fighting on opposing sides, army A and B respectively. Army A's objective is to bleed out the resources of Army B while Army B's objective is complete rout (destruction) Army A. So when the clash happens between the two armies, and Army A manages to bleed out the resources of Army B despite being routed, then objectively speaking from B's point of view, it's a win/victory (due to the destruction and annihilation of A's forces), but from A's point of view, it's also win/victory even though A has lost (been routed), A has fulfilled it's objectives which is to drain and bleed out the resources of B. Sure, it could be argued that A has lost or that B has won, but because A has achieved it's objective it's considered a win for A. It could also be argued that B has lost due to the pyrrhic victory that B has achieved and failing to prevent A from achieving A's objective.
Example 3:
A more light-hearted example is when comes to playing a sports or competition against a vastly superior foe. Depending on one's objectives and motivations for doing so, even knowing that one may very well lose, but have their own personal goals, as long as they are met, fulfilled, accomplished. Suppose an athlete in a track meet competes against another state champion and this mediocre athlete, while talented and good is unlikely to win against the state champion runner, but instead just wishes to see how well he/she fares. Upon competition, the mediocre, but talented athlete is able to compete adequately against the state champ, but still loses, and suppose the goal was just to see how well he/she fares, then that is accomplished even though the mediocre runner lost the competition. To the mediocre athlete, mission and objective has been achieved, thus a win for the mediocre athlete.
Well, these are just a few (among the many more) examples that I can give in terms of winning and losing. The point that I'm getting at here is that winning and losing are both subjective terms, dependent on one's objectives, goals, and mission in mind. What may constitute as a "loss" is not necessarily a "loss" to said person, and a victory or "win" can just be as hollow or inconsequential to the larger picture. Let me know your thoughts on this.
