Those who died young are objectively better (from a pro-choicer’s perspective)

[TAW122]

Disclaimer: This is NOT a pro-mortalist thread nor do I encourage or endorse people to die young, but merely exploring and explaining, from an objective perspective of those who have died young (especially those who chose to do so by their own hand), have managed to avoid potential immense suffering and all the problems that follow or will eventually come to pass as one continues sentience, or life.

I wished I had more characters to have a longer title, but this thread is more focused from an objective as well as pro-choice perspective on why dying young is still considered better. Anyways, in this thread, I will seek to explain in detail about why those people who died young are objectively (from the universe's perspective and from a logical perspective) as to why they are objectively better in general. Again, this is focusing on those who have died and why they are (from an objective standpoint and only focusing on them) in a better place, not suffering.

Consider an average, relatively healthy human being (US metric)
First off, with all humans, assuming the average person, be it male or female, and not to complicate things (so just keeping variables more/less the same, without too much deviation from the norm), the life expectancy is about 80 years in the US (chose 80 for an easy number and for hypothetical example purposes). So suppose one dies around age 30, and while to the survivors and people around said person (be it family, friends, and others) they feel sadness and view it as bad because they are sentient and looking in from the outsider's perspective, but for the individual person (the 30 year old), it is objectively better from a logical standpoint and from the universe's perspective. This is because then this 30 year old while he/she may miss out on many life's milestones and events, will also avoid many potential horrors in the next 50 (or more) potential years, as each day, month, year is always a gamble. Said person could get a health problem in their 40's or 50's, could end up in an accident, a victim of a crime, or other bad events in life could happen. But presuming that they lived up to 30, then passed away whether it be CTB or other cause, it is objectively better for them because they missed all the suffering that comes with life along without having to gamble for fleeting joy and pleasures.

On the contrary someone who lived to life expectancy or longer even
It is an indisputable fact that all living things, humans included will all expire, pass, succumb to death at some point in time, some sooner than others, some later than others. Again, with the same example, an average person who didn't die young, but lived until their life expectancy, perhaps even longer (at or over 80 years of age). Sure, each passing day, month, year for that person is another opportunity for potential fleeting joy and pleasure, but that is also a gamble in which the sentient must take where the non-sentient (non-existent or ones who are dead) do not have to experience. Assuming nothing extraordinary or unusual happens, even with a long duration of sentience, at 80 years or so, it is likely that even relatively healthy individuals may still run into health issues (cancer, stroke, heart disease, and many more). Most of which even with good conditions and ideal circumstances (ideal for the average person), they will still have to face the mundanity of day to day life as well as the suffering that comes during their twilight years. This is something that the non-sentient beings don't have to face. Sure, while it may be argued that this individual would have at least 50 (possibly more) years of sentience and opportunity to enjoy the pleasures and joys in life, it could also be argued that there are 50 years of gambling and unnecessary risk that comes with life itself that could easily go awry (disease, infirmity, victim of violence, and/or other forms of suffering) and then the individual's quality of life would plummet. Furthermore, the enjoyment of pleasures and joy may be fleeting and from a universal cost benefit analysis the amount of mundanity as well as potential for immense and unbounded suffering is not worth the temporary reprieve of fleeting pleasures and joy.

In conclusion, given the fact of life expectancies, uncertainty of sentience and life, the gamble of potential greater suffering in relation to fleeting moments of pleasure and joy, dying young is still objectively better at least from a universe's perspective. Of course, I don't encourage nor endorse that people should die young, but merely stating those who have died young are objectively better in the grand scheme of things. While I did mention that the survivors and outside observers (friends, family, peers, acquaintances, etc.) would be grieving, that is another thread altogether as this thread is solely focused on the perspective of the individual from the universe's perspective.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I agree so much. This is why I always say that an earlier death is a better death for me. I honestly think that this logic applies to everybody even if they enjoy their life but unless if I were to get a magical red button that were to exterminate all sentient life peacefully, I can't be bothered as to whether other people want to continue living and continue taking the risk of future suffering. All I know is that I don't want to take that risk so I shouldn't have to. I want to be risk averse. If I died at 10, it'd be better than if I died at 20 which is better than if I died at 30 and so on.

Additionally, one thing that you didn't mention that makes an earlier death better is the fact that there is no harm if a person who is constantly enjoying life were to randomly die right now. I see many pro lifers and, unfortunately to say, even many people on here say that death would be a bad thing for that person but that can't be the case since a positive welfare state doesn't matter to that person anymore since they are dead and have no feelings. The cost opportunity and the deprivationist account thus aren't applicable when it comes to death. Another thing I mistakenly see people say is that death is neutral. It isn't neutral, it simply isn't even on the spectrum at all. If something is neutral, that means that something good exceeds something neutral (like how 2 > 0) but, once again, this doesn't apply to death since a dead person no longer has any desires or feelings so then losing out on future good experiences isn't bad.

Unfortunately not many people are able to acknowledge this as they are hard wired to believe that death is bad no matter what and then work backwards from there

 

[Rust]

While I can't fault your logic, I do want to make a comment just to place an air of caution for anyone who is young and reading this. If the goal is to minimize suffering, then yes, dying early eliminates the problem. However, we might as well eliminate all life then to achieve optimal results. However, this takes things to an extreme. It's segregated from reality which means it should only be used as a thought experiment and not as a valid reason for someone to CTB.

I know you've prefaced your post multiple times by saying that you do not endorse people to die young and that this is from the universe's perspective. I appreciate that. My concern is that young people reading this will ignore what you've said and latch onto the logic. My greater concern is that this logic becomes a pinnacle point for some other thought processes down the line.

Maybe my post is pointless, but it makes me feel better to mention this.

 

[SilentSadness]

I agree, but I don't understand how that's not a pro mortalist perspective. That is a very strong argument in favour of pro mortalism, that life will always get worse and death is the only way to avoid future suffering. Life is always a gamble and when you play with fire you get burned.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I agree, but I don't understand how that's not a pro mortalist perspective. That is a very strong argument in favour of pro mortalism, that life will always get worse and death is the only way to avoid future suffering. Life is always a gamble and when you play with fire you get burned.

I agree. I was also going to comment this at the end but I didn't as I forgot to. Pro mortalism is literally the belief that an earlier death is better than a later death or that an earlier extinction is better than a later one.

However, we might as well eliminate all life then to achieve optimal results.

This will be nothing more than a thought experiment as nobody irl possesses the power to eliminate all life and every pro mortalist knows that. This is why pro mortalism is just a philosophy and nothing else

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think it's just too broader strokes to say this will be the pattern for everyone. My best years to date were ages 30-40 and that's despite having the worst health problems I've had so far in that time- gallstones leading to a stone in the bile duct. I think it's very reliant on circumstances.You can't say for sure someone won't meet the love of their life in their late 40's for example. They may not develop serious health problems until their 70's. They could have an absolutely terrible childhood but then, turn things around. It's impossible to know for sure.

Where I would agree though is- someone who's lost all hope at whatever age is surely going to find life a lot harder. They need to struggle just to find the motivation to do stuff, let alone actually do it! They may not even bother because it's so exhausting and just tread water as best they can for years, decades even and then find on top of everything else that they feel regret for having missed their chances in life.

So personally, I'd say it's more to do with attitude. How much hope a person has left. How much drive. I've had ideation since I was 10. Still, my ideation back when I was 10, 18, 24, even up to my early 40's was slightly different to how I feel now. I did at least have more drive back then to be creative. Now- I'd miss it like hell if I had to quit it but it isn't giving me the same fulfilment it used to. It's almost like- what do we still have left in our reserve tanks to push us through? Sometimes, it's just enough to still get something out of life. If there's nothing left though or- there's nothing there to begin with. There are a number of younger members who feel like there's absolutely nothing they want out of life so- why would they put anything in to it? I think those are the hardest cases if I'm honest. It's like there's no hope to be had. I suppose I've always felt like the probability of recovery depends on a sense of hope to initiate things. If someone still has some small amount of hope left- who knows? They may end up getting what they wanted in time. They may well not too. It's really just unknown.