Is it true that those who want us to live healthily in actuality want us to suffer more?

[Ambivalent1]

A longer life means more opportunities to suffer.

 

[AllFoxedOut]

I mean I agree with your premise that a longer life means more opportunities to suffer. inevitably, even.

but I don't think people encouraging us to be healthy think that way. I think they genuinely think living as long as possible is a good thing in and of itself.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I mean I agree with your premise that a longer life means more opportunities to suffer. inevitably, even.

but I don't think people encouraging us to be healthy think that way. I think they genuinely think living as long as possible is a good thing in and of itself.

Because they're insane. There are people who actually WANT to live to be a 100 yr old Lovecraftian abomination.

 

[Daft-Bear]

Hmmm… you are reminding of David Benetar's "Better Never to have Been".

Summary of the argument As follows:

While most maintain that living is beneficial as long as the benefits of life outweigh the evil, Benatar argues that this conclusion does not follow because: 1) pain is bad, and 2) pleasure good; but 3) the absence of pain is always good whether people exist or not, whereas 4) the absence of pleasure is only bad if people exist to be denied it. Here it is in matrix form:

SCENARIO A (X EXISTS)	SCENARIO B (X NEVER EXISTS)
(1) Presence of pain (Bad)	(3) Absence of pain (Good)
(2) Presence of pleasure (Good)	(4) Absence of pleasure (Not bad)

To support this asymmetry between 3 & 4 Benatar presents three arguments. The first is that: 1) while there is a duty not to bring people who will suffer into the world (supports 3), there is no duty to bring people who will be happy into the world (supports 4). Thus a lack of suffering is always good, whether or not someone exists to enjoy this absence; whereas a lack of happiness is not always bad unless people exist to be denied it.

His second argument is that though we think it strange to say we have children so they will benefit, we think it normal to say we should not have children because they will be harmed. We don't think people should have as many children as they can to benefit those children, but we do think people should refrain from having children if this will cause them suffering.

His third argument to support the asymmetry is that while not having children may be bad or good for the living, not having been born is no deprivation for those who have never been born.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Hmmm… you are reminding of David Benetar's "Better Never to have Been".

Summary of the argument As follows:

While most maintain that living is beneficial as long as the benefits of life outweigh the evil, Benatar argues that this conclusion does not follow because: 1) pain is bad, and 2) pleasure good; but 3) the absence of pain is always good whether people exist or not, whereas 4) the absence of pleasure is only bad if people exist to be denied it. Here it is in matrix form:

SCENARIO A (X EXISTS)	SCENARIO B (X NEVER EXISTS)
(1) Presence of pain (Bad)	(3) Absence of pain (Good)
(2) Presence of pleasure (Good)	(4) Absence of pleasure (Not bad)

To support this asymmetry between 3 & 4 Benatar presents three arguments. The first is that: 1) while there is a duty not to bring people who will suffer into the world (supports 3), there is no duty to bring people who will be happy into the world (supports 4). Thus a lack of suffering is always good, whether or not someone exists to enjoy this absence; whereas a lack of happiness is not always bad unless people exist to be denied it.

His second argument is that though we think it strange to say we have children so they will benefit, we think it normal to say we should not have children because they will be harmed. We don't think people should have as many children as they can to benefit those children, but we do think people should refrain from having children if this will cause them suffering.

His third argument to support the asymmetry is that while not having children may be bad or good for the living, not having been born is no deprivation for those who have never been born.

Logical living is best

 

[Daft-Bear]

Logical living is best

It's all i know. Lol

 

[Ambivalent1]

It's all i know. Lol

Emotional living is the norm

 

[Daft-Bear]

Emotional living is the norm

I think we are all emotional animals first, and logical second. if I weren't, I probably wouldn't be here today.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

When people have no problems in their lives, only the regular ups and downs, then it's fairly easy to expect others to live their lives. They don't and often can't recognize how agonizing mental problems can be. They are not visible to anyone only to oneself. That's the actual problem they don't understand how someone can suffer from sth that is "invisible" for others.

 

[Lam1dz]

A longer life means more opportunities to suffer.

yes i mean its clear for them but they dont feel you cuz they'r not in your situation that's why no one gonna feel us i think the longer we live the longer we suffer its already done

 

[Ambivalent1]

When people have no problems in their lives, only the regular ups and downs, then it's fairly easy to expect others to live their lives. They don't and often can't recognize how agonizing mental problems can be. They are not visible to anyone only to oneself. That's the actual problem they don't understand how someone can suffer from sth that is "invisible" for others.

Interesting. How do you think people view you as a person? I've always wondered how I'm perceived in person. All i see about me is the overwhelming problems I have to deal with

 

[Praestat_Mori]

Interesting. How do you think people view you as a person? I've always wondered how I'm perceived in person. All i see about me is the overwhelming problems I have to deal with

That's good question. I don't really know how to answer it. I've actually never thought about it as I've never had a feeling that others see me as a "bad / sick person that needs pity". I Really don't know how to say or describe it.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Unless they're sadistic or vengeful maybe, I don't think many people want others to suffer. I think most people hope their loved ones will live long and reasonably happy lives because they don't want to be bereaved by their deaths. I think it's that principle that just gets rolled out to everyone else.

As for the larger 'they'- governments. There's probably a limit and we're probably reaching it- people ARE living to be much older now. I doubt they're all that thrilled about that! All that pension money, health and nursing care eating away at their profits.

 

[Rogue Proxy]

A longer life means more opportunities to suffer.

A longer life also results in creating and exacerbating more suffering for humans and other species alike, whether intentional or unintentional, directly or indirectly.

As for your premise, I surmise the main motivation for wishing good health and longevity onto others boils down to utility and exploitation. The more healthy, "functional", and enduring an individual is, the more wants and needs of other humans that individual can fulfill. The immeasurable benefits of a human include entertainment, companionship, attention, physical and emotional labor; paying taxes, goods, and services; protection, winning competitions, battles, and/or wars for others; sexual pleasure, reproduction, fortifying positive emotions, egos, (self-) images, statuses, and life purposes; validating ideas, beliefs, and rules; bestowing knowledge, wisdom, and information,; ect.

Deep down, all humans are selfish, self-serving, and egocentric - just like every organism on this planet. Exploitation of other organisms, especially conspecifics, is key to a human's survival, thrival, and reproduction. And every human forcing into existence is expected and demanded to serve their species, particularly members of their designated social groups (e.g. family, friends, employment, belief system, education, club(s), community, country, ect.).

 

[FuneralCry]

I just believe that many people are blinded by delusional beliefs about the reality of existing here, they push the idea that existing is "good, beneficial, that it's a positive thing to live longer" as maybe it's some kind of absurd coping mechanism for them, they don't want to face the reality that existence undeniably is something so harmful, I mean after all it's a fact that there is unlimited potential to suffer in this existence where chance so cruelly determines everything.

Those people to me just lack awareness, I could never see existence as being acceptable and I cannot stand life glorifying/worshipping, it's just people in denial. I could never wish to slowly decay from age, the thought of such a thing disturbs me, I see existence as being nothing more than a meaningless and tragic mistake, it's the ultimate cause of all suffering.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I just believe that many people are blinded by delusional beliefs about the reality of existing here, they push the idea that existing is "good, beneficial, that it's a positive thing to live longer" as maybe it's some kind of absurd coping mechanism for them, they don't want to face the reality that existence undeniably is something so harmful, I mean after all it's a fact that there is unlimited potential to suffer in this existence where chance so cruelly determines everything.

Those people to me just lack awareness, I could never see existence as being acceptable and I cannot stand life glorifying/worshipping, it's just people in denial. I could never wish to slowly decay from age, the thought of such a thing disturbs me, I see existence as being nothing more than a meaningless and tragic mistake, it's the ultimate cause of all suffering.

If you contracted a serious illness, would you go to the hospital?

 

[FuneralCry]

If you contracted a serious illness, would you go to the hospital?

I would hope it just causes me to cease existing but that isn't always guaranteed, I'm not sure what I would do, I would certainly try and avoid any hospitals if possible, I just don't wish to end up in a situation of way worse suffering.

 

[tpboy]

I live in SE America. Here God comes first and most believe that he is the only one who can make the decision of life a death. It matters not how bad your suffering may be.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I live in SE America. Here God comes first and most believe that he is the only one who can make the decision of life a death. It matters not how bad your suffering may be.

Sad

 

[brokeandbroken]

A longer life means more opportunities to suffer.

Depends some diseases are horrible too. So you may not necessarily die but be miserable.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Depends some diseases are horrible too. So you may not necessarily die but be miserable.

This life is a masochist's paradise.

 

[carac]

For me it is very much all or nothing or like they say in shawshank "get busy living or get busy dieing". If you aren't going to ctb then I personal think it's better to be as healthy as you can otherwise you are going to just cause yourself more suffering. I'd rather be fit and active and drop dead at 70 than have long lingering disabled death at 80.
When I was at my worst a thought struck me, I was inside and hardly doing anything, and I was thinking like ctb is the only way i'm going to die, there was hardly any chance I would die in an accident as I didn't leave the house. When I was in recovery I was out cycling and I thought, isn't this ironic, now I actually don't mind living there's more chance I can get hit by a bus or something and die but when I was just indoors there was no chance of that happening.

 

[Hollowman]

A longer life means more opportunity for more people to make money off of us.