To exist or not exist. that is the question

[tarasan]

Hey guys!! I have just gotten my last assignment back for my degree in Christian theology! Yay!!

I was talking to a fellow student of Christian theology yesterday about Ontology. More specifically it was about whether it is better to exist in eternal suffering or to not exist at all.

My friend said that it seemed obvious that it was better to not exist than to suffer eternally for the obvious reason that to not exist at all means that the person in question does not suffer, I however am not so convinced. Now before someone blows the bull horn at me please here me out because I’m more than willing to be convinced of the other side.

It seems to me the dividing questions between me and my friend is firstly

1) is the meaning of life to be happy/comfortable

and

2) it is possible for suffering in someone’s life to genuinely outweigh the positives of existence. (Thereby making non-existence preferable)

I will answer both questions in my view now I will try to keep it short-winded.

1) I believe that the happiness of ones life is not the end goal, but rather the pursuit of meaning and relevance of your life (to me and my friend this is the Christian God, but other views are very welcome in this discussion).

2) Following from 1 I believe that no matter the suffering it is always worth existing and I believe this for a number of reasons

a) to deny the existence of a thing, you must deny all the experiences that said thing could have had.

What I mean by this is that to deny its existence is to deny the happiness that it had, as well denying the happiness that it gave to people, and the repercussions of that happiness.

b) You must deny the legacy that said entity gave to the world.

That is you must deny the learning experience that the entity left behind.

c) You must deny the thing true meaning

to me meaning is that it has a legitimate affect on individuals or God (again my interpretation) by being denied existence then it has not had the chance to fulfil either of these things, because its potential significance of either God or people has been denied to it.

I know these seem like fairly simple ideas but I know that people probably won’t read an essay. I hope that this made sense please everyone feel free to comment.

 

[SarahRuth]

You're focusing more on the effects that one person had on others or on the universe, rather than focusing on that one person's suffering as an individual. It's looking at the greater good rather than the relatively insignificant individual... I really think that you need to be more specific as to whether you are considering the individual's perspective or if you are including the effect that person has on others as well. Personally, I have a hard time accepting the suffering of another person for my own benefit.

 

[tarasan]

You're focusing more on the effects that one person had on others or on the universe, rather than focusing on that one person's suffering as an individual. It's looking at the greater good rather than the relatively insignificant individual... I really think that you need to be more specific as to whether you are considering the individual's perspective or if you are including the effect that person has on others as well. Personally, I have a hard time accepting the suffering of another person for my own benefit.

no no thats not what im getting at, im saying that ultimately happiness is not the main aim of life but the pursuit of meaning and relevance. this takes the issue away from whether they suffer or not to, were they able to have true meaning in this life or not.

in other words, did they have real significance? my point rather than blurring the individual away, I feel puts him/ her into sharper focus. After if they have more meaning isnt that of benefit to them as well as the wider group?

 

[No Good Boyo]

for me, the purpose of life is to create life and ensure the survival of our species. Same for all animals I guess. I will strive to ensure that I do my best to achieve my personal goals, and will do my best to ensure my kids have a better life than mine. Happiness and meaning are of significantly less importance than that stated above.

Concerning the question of whether it is better to exist and suffer vs non existence, I guess that's down to the individual to decide and will be largely dependent to the degree in which they are suffering. In my country euthanasia is illegal. So regardless of badly a person may be suffering they will not be permitted (by law) to kill themselves. People who oppose euthanasia here do so for religious reasons. They seem to think that they have the right to decide for the patient what is best for them. Seems crazy to me as it should be the choice of the sufferer, not the moral judges.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I see the point of the op; the impact an individual has on other people holds an importance to existence and outweighs what suffering may be incurred. I can also see not wanting to exist due to immense pain and suffering (I have been there and felt non-existence would be preferred). As long as I know I am doing my best for not only the people I care about, but also myself and am able to make a positive impact on their lives, I agree the pros outweigh the cons.