Darkover
Angelic
- Jul 29, 2021
- 4,721
Life, by its nature, involves suffering—physical, emotional, or psychological. While moments of happiness or contentment exist, they are often fleeting and uncertain. Suffering, however, is a near-certainty. From a rational perspective, one might conclude that the potential for extreme suffering outweighs the possibility of occasional pleasure. Without the assurance of an option to end life should suffering become unbearable, a rational being might feel trapped in an inescapable situation, forced to endure without recourse.
Even with the best of intentions, it's impossible to predict what the future holds. Chronic illness, mental health crises, or unforeseen circumstances could lead to a quality of life so diminished that existence becomes unbearable. The lack of a reliable means to exit this existence, should one find themselves in such a state, could be seen as an unreasonable risk to take—especially when compared to the certainty of death, which is inevitable for all.
A rational being would likely value their autonomy and ability to control their own fate. The inability to make the choice to end one's life in extreme circumstances could be seen as a form of subjugation—being bound to the whims of life, subject to forces beyond one's control. Without an escape, the individual may feel like a prisoner of their own body or mind. Rationality demands that we have the right to make decisions about our own existence, especially when suffering becomes overwhelming and irredeemable.
Rational beings who are aware of their own mortality may come to realize the brevity and potential pointlessness of life. If life holds the possibility of endless suffering or degradation without a guaranteed way out, choosing existence in the first place could be seen as illogical. A rational mind might prefer the peace and certainty of non-existence, where suffering is absent and no further harm can be inflicted. The question then becomes, why take the risk of enduring a life filled with suffering when one can face the certainty of nothingness, which would offer freedom from all pain?
From a rational standpoint, one might question the ethics of forcing a being into existence without offering the means to end it when necessary. It could be argued that bringing a being into existence without considering the full range of potential suffering they may experience is ethically irresponsible. If society values autonomy and personal choice, then a rational being would likely expect that, should they ever find themselves in unbearable circumstances, they should have the right to opt out without facing legal or medical barriers.
In essence, the rational argument for no being coming into existence without the means to end it if needed hinges on the acknowledgment that life is fraught with uncertainties and suffering, and that any intelligent, autonomous being would not rationally accept such a fate without having some form of control over their exit. To be forced into life without recourse to death could be seen as the ultimate lack of freedom—a form of existence dictated by chance rather than choice.
Even with the best of intentions, it's impossible to predict what the future holds. Chronic illness, mental health crises, or unforeseen circumstances could lead to a quality of life so diminished that existence becomes unbearable. The lack of a reliable means to exit this existence, should one find themselves in such a state, could be seen as an unreasonable risk to take—especially when compared to the certainty of death, which is inevitable for all.
A rational being would likely value their autonomy and ability to control their own fate. The inability to make the choice to end one's life in extreme circumstances could be seen as a form of subjugation—being bound to the whims of life, subject to forces beyond one's control. Without an escape, the individual may feel like a prisoner of their own body or mind. Rationality demands that we have the right to make decisions about our own existence, especially when suffering becomes overwhelming and irredeemable.
Rational beings who are aware of their own mortality may come to realize the brevity and potential pointlessness of life. If life holds the possibility of endless suffering or degradation without a guaranteed way out, choosing existence in the first place could be seen as illogical. A rational mind might prefer the peace and certainty of non-existence, where suffering is absent and no further harm can be inflicted. The question then becomes, why take the risk of enduring a life filled with suffering when one can face the certainty of nothingness, which would offer freedom from all pain?
From a rational standpoint, one might question the ethics of forcing a being into existence without offering the means to end it when necessary. It could be argued that bringing a being into existence without considering the full range of potential suffering they may experience is ethically irresponsible. If society values autonomy and personal choice, then a rational being would likely expect that, should they ever find themselves in unbearable circumstances, they should have the right to opt out without facing legal or medical barriers.
In essence, the rational argument for no being coming into existence without the means to end it if needed hinges on the acknowledgment that life is fraught with uncertainties and suffering, and that any intelligent, autonomous being would not rationally accept such a fate without having some form of control over their exit. To be forced into life without recourse to death could be seen as the ultimate lack of freedom—a form of existence dictated by chance rather than choice.
