Discussion [Theory] Possible reason to why pro-lifers enjoy life

[TAW122]

Cue the video that TRTNLE and SHK went to debate with some religious pro-lifers (around the 47:45 mark). So the pro-lifers (both the couple as well as their friend for a total of 3 people) were debating TRTNLE (Kev) and SHK (Dietz) on anti-natalism as well as a little bit with regards to extinctionism and death. Kev and Dietz both hold the position of antinatalism that life is overall suffering and that if there was never a start, then there would not be suffering (nothingness is neither a negative (harm) nor a positive (benefit), but rather a neutral state). As a person who is both pro-choice with regards to the right to die and voluntary euthanasia as well as an antinatalist myself, I believe I may have found yet another reason and theory that could explain why pro-lifers enjoy life.

So my speculation and claim (as a third party observer watching and listening to the video and part of the debate) is that these prolifers (those three people) enjoy life and want to live because 'after sentience has arrived (basically after they were conceived/born), they have experienced what it is to experience consciousness' and while it is suffering, they still find the 'good' and this relative good is of course subjective. There can be lots of pleasurable moments (for some people) while minimal suffering whereas others can have the opposite experience too-- lots of suffering but not enough pleasure to outweigh existence (sentience) over non-existence (non-sentience). The people who have more pleasurable moments (albeit fleeting) will oftenly latch onto life and convince themselves that "it was all worth it", which is the suffering and torture of existence is an appropriate price (for them) to pay to enjoy the temporary (not everlasting) pleasures in between the long, arduous duration of sentience (their lifespan). This is even more prominent for those who are religious and believe in a higher power (aka 'God').

In other words, simply put, these pro-lifers are brainwashed and deluded by illusions of life and (false) hope, so that is all they ever known, thus they are speaking from just that perspective and bound by sentience itself, which feeds itself in a cycle of never-ending sentience to maintain itself (like recursively). That, by extension could be also a part of their self-preservation (survival instinct) by biological programming (of all living things).

Thus, if they never came into existence and never knew sentience, then they would not miss out on anything as they would lack the perception of perception of pleasure and suffering. In other words, you cannot lose what you never had. To me (personally) this was not as difficult as others may have found it because I am an atheist and do not believe in God(s) nor an afterlife (while I did make threads talking about afterlives, and gods, it was more of hypothetical and philosophical discussions, mainly to understand others' perspectives and reactions to various scenarios.).

What do you guys think, do you think that this distinct possibility of pro-lifers themselves enjoying life itself is because ever since they came into sentience, then that's all they know and could never comprehend the pre-life (the time that existed before they became aware of their own sentience, their own consciousness) and also couldn't comprehend (the concept and idea of) nothingness?

 

[SamTam33]

Humans tend to be biased towards activities they participate in.

People who like hunting will justify the killing of ducks and deer until they're blue in the face because they like doing it.

But if someone tried to kill THEM... it's wrong.

We participate in life/we are alive - so living is viewed as preferable.

It's the same reason why people who SWEAR there's a heaven and an afterlife are inexplicably afraid to die. They want to keep doing the thing they're already doing even though the other thing (heaven) is supposed to be exponentially better.

The woman summed it up in one sentence. She said that although she's experienced a lot of suffering, "I still feel that I have value."

SHE has value. She's not concerned with anything outside of that.

Me, myself and I.

It's what the vast majority of people are consumed with: themselves.

Ego is the single most repulsive thing about this species.

Personally, I don't think people conduct a thorough evaluation of whether or not they actually enjoy life. They mainly enjoy the idea that they exist. And anything that brings into question their existence - is immediately rejected as wrong and incomprehensible.

Even though they might mention other people in these hypothetical discussions, their underlying concern is the diminishment of their importance and their existence.

They don't necessarily enjoy what life entails, but they enjoy being alive because they've assigned value to it. They've assigned value to it because it's something they already do.

It's circular reasoning at its absolute finest.

 

[Looking]

I don't think this theory is "wrong" by any means, and I do believe it to be factually true in some or a lot of cases.

I think the assumption that life is only suffering can only be viewed from the lens of egocentrism (not to be confused with narcissism). Life is neutral; and that's what makes death neutral. Existing is a complicated experience that some genuinely get enjoyment out of - And sometimes it's not. Death is a complicated process of leaving everything you understood to be true behind into a void - And sometimes it's not.

There will just be some concepts that we as nihilistic people cannot understand. I think one of the biggest struggles for nihilistic people, is that while antinatalism is rooted in some "objective" and "correct" concepts, it's not rooted in the human concept. (By the way, I lean towards antinatalism.)

I don't think everyone who enjoys life is doing so purely out of ignorance or a misunderstanding of what "nothingness" means. I think the simple answer is that they have a different perspective other than my own, and it's equally valid as my own, because the concept of neutrality is mainly a human thing.

Things are what they are - there is nothing more to it then that. We add these labels because we like to compare experiences and things together, and that inherently fogs our understanding of each other. Because you're comparing their existence to your understanding of non-existence - You will never truly understand something you cannot grasp by itself.

Good thread though! I actually enjoyed reading the OP a lot (even if my understanding of it is slightly different than yours); it made me think and question myself a bit as I tried to understand why I didn't fully agree.

 

[TAW122]

Humans tend to be biased towards activities they participate in.

People who like hunting will justify the killing of ducks and deer until they're blue in the face because they like doing it.

But if someone tried to kill THEM... it's wrong.

We participate in life/we are alive - so living is viewed as preferable.

It's the same reason why people who SWEAR there's a heaven and an afterlife are inexplicably afraid to die. They want to keep doing the thing they're already doing even though the other thing (heaven) is supposed to be exponentially better.

The woman summed it up in one sentence. She said that although she's experienced a lot of suffering, "I still feel that I have value."

SHE has value. She's not concerned with anything outside of that.

Me, myself and I.

It's what the vast majority of people are consumed with: themselves.

Ego is the single most repulsive thing about this species.

Personally, I don't think people conduct a thorough evaluation of whether or not they actually enjoy life. They mainly enjoy the idea that they exist. And anything that brings into question their existence - is immediately rejected as wrong and incomprehensible.

Even though they might mention other people in these hypothetical discussions, their underlying concern is the diminishment of their importance and their existence.

They don't necessarily enjoy what life entails, but they enjoy being alive because they've assigned value to it. They've assigned value to it because it's something they already do.

It's circular reasoning at its absolute finest.

Great analogy about the ducks and deer, as it shows the egocentricism of the human species, since we (humans) feel like we are superior to all other life on this planet. Good summary about ego as well and how prolifers only see themselves as they are. It is indeed circular reasoning and the denial of truth, reality, and critical thinking.

I don't think this theory is "wrong" by any means, and I do believe it to be factually true in some or a lot of cases.

I think the assumption that life is only suffering can only be viewed from the lens of egocentrism (not to be confused with narcissism). Life is neutral; and that's what makes death neutral. Existing is a complicated experience that some genuinely get enjoyment out of - And sometimes it's not. Death is a complicated process of leaving everything you understood to be true behind into a void - And sometimes it's not.

There will just be some concepts that we as nihilistic people cannot understand. I think one of the biggest struggles for nihilistic people, is that while antinatalism is rooted in some "objective" and "correct" concepts, it's not rooted in the human concept. (By the way, I lean towards antinatalism.)

I don't think everyone who enjoys life is doing so purely out of ignorance or a misunderstanding of what "nothingness" means. I think the simple answer is that they have a different perspective other than my own, and it's equally valid as my own, because the concept of neutrality is mainly a human thing.

Things are what they are - there is nothing more to it then that. We add these labels because we like to compare experiences and things together, and that inherently fogs our understanding of each other. Because you're comparing their existence to your understanding of non-existence - You will never truly understand something you cannot grasp by itself.

Good thread though! I actually enjoyed reading the OP a lot (even if my understanding of it is slightly different than yours); it made me think and question myself a bit as I tried to understand why I didn't fully agree.

Yes, life and death (itself, as far as the universe is concerned) are devoid of positive and negative values. The reason that death has a negative label attached to it is also like you said, the perspective of the person (sentient) experiencing it and assigning the value "negative" to it. Whereas life has a "positive" label attached to it by prolifers because they are sentience and know that being alive (feeling and experiencing consciousness, sentience) is something that they have and because they assigned a value to it, it being "positive" means that anything that challenges, threatens, or opposes that value, it has to be wrong, shunned, rejected, and even deleted. This happens in the case of suppression of free speech when it comes to discussion about 'death', especially in philosophical, ethical, and moral conversations.

So in the perspective of pro-lifers, since they only see life and that is what they experience and perceive, they attach that value and call it 'positive' while rejecting anything that threatens it (aka non-sentience, death, unconsciousness) as 'negative' and do everything and anything in their power to reject, suppress, prevent, and avoid such a state. Death is indeed a part of life and even a natural, inevitable state that will come for ALL living things (some sooner, some later, some on one's own terms, others by other causes), but pro-lifers with their lens and perspective will always (do their best to) reject it.

 

[Looking]

Yes, life and death (itself, as far as the universe is concerned) are devoid of positive and negative values. The reason that death has a negative label attached to it is also like you said, the perspective of the person (sentient) experiencing it and assigning the value "negative" to it. Whereas life has a "positive" label attached to it by prolifers because they are sentience and know that being alive (feeling and experiencing consciousness, sentience) is something that they have and because they assigned a value to it, it being "positive" means that anything that challenges, threatens, or opposes that value, it has to be wrong, shunned, rejected, and even deleted. This happens in the case of suppression of free speech when it comes to discussion about 'death', especially in philosophical, ethical, and moral conversations.

So in the perspective of pro-lifers, since they only see life and that is what they experience and perceive, they attach that value and call it 'positive' while rejecting anything that threatens it (aka non-sentience, death, unconsciousness) as 'negative' and do everything and anything in their power to reject, suppress, prevent, and avoid such a state. Death is indeed a part of life and even a natural, inevitable state that will come for ALL living things (some sooner, some later, some on one's own terms, others by other causes), but pro-lifers with their lens and perspective will always (do their best to) reject it.

I agree with everything you've said!

In my experience, which is obviously very limited and I cannot speak on humanity as a whole, most people are actually more accepting towards death than most people assume they are. (Assisted death is a stepping stone to something larger in society.)

I wouldn't say that people who are pro-life inherently see life as positive, but rather that they can only see life through their own experiences (Which is similar to what you've said) - as in when they think about death, they're not thinking about the death of a stranger.

I think it's fair to say that most people don't pay much attention (or even mind) to people who die, unless it was someone they put some value on. This means that they don't view death as here or there, and most people will agree with the idea that everyone dies eventually, and how they die isn't normally important. If someone dies due to old age or through a car crash, people will most likely say that "it happens".

Unless it's someone they put value on. This can be a celebrity, someone they knew or someone they loved. The main way we process information is through stories and our understanding of our own interactions with others. It's why you can read an article about a cancer patient who died, and feel something for them, despite never knowing them. Or being sad when a fictional character has died in your favorite TV show, even though they never existed.

When we think about death, we think about someone we know being gone. This has to due with grief, not ignorance of nothingness. Just because nothingness is neutral, it doesn't mean people will feel neutral about it. I'm sure everyone here would agree that having someone you love no longer be here is hard, even if we view death differently to other people.

Empathy, sympathy and compassion are very strong emotions. When you attach these emotions to something such as grief, loss or pain, then their stance will naturally become of "Your life is worth living" - because your life is worth living to them.

I think people are too embarrassed to say that "Only certain people's lives means anything to me", so their general stance applies to everyone. In this way, people understand the perspective of losing someone they love, and they probably wouldn't wish it on someone else; not actually because they care about this stranger, but because they can only grasp loss in their own eyes.

As in, I wouldn't say that a majority of people reject, suppress or prevent the discussion such concepts of death; I think the average person who enjoys living would have a fairly neutral or understanding view of death. Most people who don't are out of ignorance, but I wouldn't say the majority of people view death that way.

(My experience is based solely on me living in America without a lot of religious influence, lmfao. Obviously these factors can change a lot in another person's view about death.)

Does it make it selfish? Absolutely. But would I say it's from a lack of understanding? Not really, I would say it's that they view it differently, not ignorantly.

Does any of that make sense?

 

[Forever Sleep]

I don't know really. I'm willing to accept that SOME people are 'delluded'. I think it's the whole- 'well- we're stuck here- may as well make the best of it' type approach. This I suppose can include 'lying' to yourself- ie. all these bad things are happening to me for a reason and one day- things will work out fine.

I suppose at some basic level we all DO know that life takes effort. Of course- you can STILL fail- even if you put that effort in. Still- if you don't even try- what's the chances of things magically improving? Low I would say.

So to that end- what kind of outlook will make you more willing to at least try?

Life is pointless. Everything I do I fail at. Things will only get worse- no matter what I do.

Or:

I'm going to try and find something that makes me feel worthwhile. I'll keep trying until I suceed. It won't be easy but if I try my best- perhaps things will improve.

I think sometimes WE even know we're bullshitting ourselves but we kind of HAVE to have some hope/delussion in order to just convince ourselves to try. Plus- IS it delussion if things DO work out ok-ish in the end? We're talking about the future here. How do you know everyone's lives are going to turn out shit? Plus- it's surely ALL about personal experience and perception- what you might consider a terrible life- another person might claim they find worthwhile and vice versa.

I DEFINITELY believe in the phenomenon of self-fullfilling prophecy. I think our outlooks on life as being this terrible burden makes life a lot harder because we are constantly swimming against the current. We don't want to be here in the first place- so any problem on top of that seems colossal.

I do actually believe that some people do genuinely enjoy life. I remember watching that documentary 'The Bridge.' They interviewed this guy who had witnessed someone jump. He said- he just found the contrast so stark. At the time- I think he was kite surfing. It was the thing he enjoyed the most in life. I imagine it must be exhilarating- like flying I bet. Anyhow- he was saying how he just simply couldn't grasp how someone could be that unhappy to want to take their own life.

For some people who are 'blessed'/privelaged- whatever you want to call it- I expect life CAN indeed be amazing. I don't necessarily think it's ALL about health/wealth/looks. I wonder if some people simply have a greater capacity to enjoy and appreciate life. Take my God parents for example. Neither of them had particularly privelaged lives but they both LOVED and appreciated life- GENUINELY. They worked hard at all aspects of life- which included working hard on enjoying themselves and really relishing those moments. I REALLY admired them for that. I don't know if it's something they were born with/ something they were taught or something they worked hard on but it seemed to work for them. I don't actually think it's all that fair to call them 'delluded' though. They just had a different way of looking at the world.

Take mountain climbers for instance- I'd say that was a good analogy for life. To me- it seems like masochism. I can't see how any view or sense of achievement would be worth all that discomfort/pain and risk. Yet- to someone else- despite frostbite/sprains/blisters/broken bones- there's likely nothing else they'd rather do. Who's wrong? Neither of us- we just enjoy different things.

Some people DO enjoy life- despite it's setbacks. Personally- I'm happy to respect their point of view as equally valid as mine. It would be nice if they did the same of course but that's another matter...

 

[FuneralCry]

I don't even believe that all pro lifers really enjoy life, they are just blinded by delusional beliefs and of course privilege in life can be linked to why they hold these beliefs. I just think that people place value and emphasis on life as this existence is all that they know and they fear not existing which can be linked to the survival instinct. I also think that suicide represents what many people fear which is existence not being worth enduring, and death being the preferable option, pro life people don't wish to face this reality as it shatters their worldview. This could explain why they see suicide as being worse than suffering.

 

[TAW122]

@Looking Interesting post and response. It seems like pro-lifers just have an iron-clad view on life is good and like you said, empathy, sympathy, and compassion are strong emotions. I believe just these emotions alone would override logic and even as far as pushing their values to others who do not agree with their stance. They are indeed selfish which is unfortunate and it may be very difficult for them to change their stance. Perhaps even starting with diminishing the impact of religion on policy and encouragement of critical thinking, philosophy, and logic, as well as reality may help too. Then also, personal experiences, if people experience hardship in the sense that suffering until death is worse than having a dignified death, perhaps the more reasonable people could be moved towards changing, or at the minimum respecting others' views through compassion as well.

@Forever Sleep Good points, especially about some people who 'genuinely' enjoy life despite the hardships. Yes, I believe to each to their own, and it is possible that a pro-lifer may even enjoy the chaotic, unpredictability, hardships, and challenges that life has to offer. Their minds and attitudes towards it are different. Perhaps they too, have vast (not unlimited though) amounts of tolerance, fortitude for such difficulties of life. As for us, yes for our view, we objectively see life as a futile existence and that we never consented to be sentient (then again, no living sentient being ever chose to exist, they simply are). As for pro-lifers seeing our views, let alone respecting it, it would be hard unless there are monumental events that spur and force them to see our view (disaster, loss, life changing events, etc.). I agree with you that it is not a matter of right or wrong, but different perspectives.

@FuneralCry Very true, and definitely on point with regards to the survival instinct, which unfortunately is a very powerful evolutionary mechanism in living things to avoid pain, suffering, and/or death. (Which also explains why certain methods, even if it can be successful, is very hard to go through due to the discomfort, agony, and pain and suffering that one can experience from said attempt.) Also, I think yes, our recognition that life itself is not worth living threatens their worldview so they automatically reject it not because it isn't true, but would force them to accept they are wrong and their hubris will not allow their worldview (which is all they know) to be shattered or be destroyed, thus they shut down anything that opposes their said worldview.

 

[GasMonkey]

They enjoy life because they have the proper genetics/brain wiring/neurotransmitters/hormones/environment. Whether they are pro-lifers or not is unrelated.

Feeling good is their baseline, enjoying things is natural to them, people on this forum can't even grasp that concept due to having fucked up brains and feeling like shit most of the time.

 

[Shy_Shay]

I am really enjoying Watching/Reading all this threads and discussion, they made see things from both perspectives and see for myself what is what in this little world...

I have to Agree with both concepts posted in this thread people who enjoy life with their experiences will never understand how can someone else commit such act against their lives

as those who will or already commit the act will or not know how they can enjoy such life...

I am new to this forum and my view about this discussion already seems imbalanced, neutral at most, i don't have a "future" to live for, but yet i am still here and not really thinking about ending my journey yet, i enjoy some things in life and would end it for other reasons both in a neutral stance without getting neither good nor more bad.

i won't never judge those who will commit nor those who want to live, they know what they want better than i will ever do, all i can offer is shoulder to cry or hand so they can get up and try again... so Thank you for this space were i can feel at peace and talk my mind out ^_^

 

[AllMyDreams]

I think a lot of what it comes down to is gratitude. If you want to live you do so, in short, because you're grateful for the things in your life, and life therefore is objectively valuable no matter what else happens in it. It's easier for religious people because they taught from birth to be grateful that God created them, that they have a chance to spread his message, that they'll be able to go to heaven afterwards etc., and so no matter what they do in life, as long as it's aligned with their religion, it's inherently right.

But yeah, like you touched on, there's no inherent, objective positive value to anything. If you aren't born with the chemical ability to feel grateful for life or instilled with the perspective that life is valuable, then you have three choices:

1. Change your mindset, so that you change what you'd be grateful for to match your life. This is why people unsatisfied with their lives convert to religion, do meditation, work on developing self-love etc. People don't view the world as worthwhile to them, so they manipulate their brains to change the threshold of what makes them content.
2. Change your life so that you experience what you'd be grateful for. This is usually necessary for those who derive value from other people's expectations/praise, and it's why people set goals, and can be happy when they achieve them. However, people who rely on goals alone for seeing life as worthwhile will often not be happy because goals often don't work out. I've noticed that the happiest people generally use this in conjunction with option #1. That is, always be grateful for what you have, but set goals as well.
3. If you aren't able to do either of these things (due to life circumstances or mental illness), then you become a nihilist and eventually die.

Pro-lifers assume that anyone can accomplish #1 and/or #2. That's why they are pro-life, and why they will try to save others from death. They basically can't see a scenario where #3 is inevitable. Religious or not, all people really can know is life, and since they derive value from life, they prefer it over nothing.

 

[SexyIncél]

I don't believe pro-lifers are pro life.

Instead of researching immortality, they fritter their lives away on corporate law, scanning food on conveyor belts, etc.

Wageslavery kills half their waking lives. Another person controls their bodies and they're just symbiotes.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

Cue the video that TRTNLE and SHK went to debate with some religious pro-lifers (around the 47:45 mark). So the pro-lifers (both the couple as well as their friend for a total of 3 people) were debating TRTNLE (Kev) and SHK (Dietz) on anti-natalism as well as a little bit with regards to extinctionism and death. Kev and Dietz both hold the position of antinatalism that life is overall suffering and that if there was never a start, then there would not be suffering (nothingness is neither a negative (harm) nor a positive (benefit), but rather a neutral state). As a person who is both pro-choice with regards to the right to die and voluntary euthanasia as well as an antinatalist myself, I believe I may have found yet another reason and theory that could explain why pro-lifers enjoy life.

So my speculation and claim (as a third party observer watching and listening to the video and part of the debate) is that these prolifers (those three people) enjoy life and want to live because 'after sentience has arrived (basically after they were conceived/born), they have experienced what it is to experience consciousness' and while it is suffering, they still find the 'good' and this relative good is of course subjective. There can be lots of pleasurable moments (for some people) while minimal suffering whereas others can have the opposite experience too-- lots of suffering but not enough pleasure to outweigh existence (sentience) over non-existence (non-sentience). The people who have more pleasurable moments (albeit fleeting) will oftenly latch onto life and convince themselves that "it was all worth it", which is the suffering and torture of existence is an appropriate price (for them) to pay to enjoy the temporary (not everlasting) pleasures in between the long, arduous duration of sentience (their lifespan). This is even more prominent for those who are religious and believe in a higher power (aka 'God').

In other words, simply put, these pro-lifers are brainwashed and deluded by illusions of life and (false) hope, so that is all they ever known, thus they are speaking from just that perspective and bound by sentience itself, which feeds itself in a cycle of never-ending sentience to maintain itself (like recursively). That, by extension could be also a part of their self-preservation (survival instinct) by biological programming (of all living things).

Thus, if they never came into existence and never knew sentience, then they would not miss out on anything as they would lack the perception of perception of pleasure and suffering. In other words, you cannot lose what you never had. To me (personally) this was not as difficult as others may have found it because I am an atheist and do not believe in God(s) nor an afterlife (while I did make threads talking about afterlives, and gods, it was more of hypothetical and philosophical discussions, mainly to understand others' perspectives and reactions to various scenarios.).

What do you guys think, do you think that this distinct possibility of pro-lifers themselves enjoying life itself is because ever since they came into sentience, then that's all they know and could never comprehend the pre-life (the time that existed before they became aware of their own sentience, their own consciousness) and also couldn't comprehend (the concept and idea of) nothingness?

They are heavily programmed as efil Blaise said and I agree. Efil blaise said it at aound 7:40 -7:46 of this video imo They are brainwashed . The ever Deeper honesty book says they are brainwashed.


This brilliant neuroscientist says something that would shock most people especially here : that most humans are not even aware that they will die and I Put the time stamp here where that discussion starts



I agree with Eagleman the neuroscientist. Since most humans are not even aware of the most fundamental truth that I and every human will die then what do they know about anything that is true?

 

[CTB Dream]

This nit even all prolif enjoy most all delusn even exmp prolif enjoy this lie, awful prgrm ape brainle keep repeat force suffer. This bio all disgust all cruel. Tell you thing also human absurd no think make all no sense sstm life relig cntry etc all thing only lie not think keep distract even war etc. Human awful species this real reason, not only absurd also awful monster