That is a great piece. Having experienced angst and the absurd (described by my beloved existentialists) I understand why someone would argue as Benatar does.Though I think I'd prefer Pat to David.Dawkins makes a wonderful mistake (perhaps on purpose): To be "lucky" is a good thing. To exist when the odds of your not-existing were very long is just a fact. One could say it's "by luck" in the sense of "chance," but that doesn't mean it's lucky. (If it were, every chance bad occurrence would be "lucky" :-)Equivocations are so much fun.
That's subtle. I like it! Yes, by all means existing is improbable and in some sense lucky. As in, just a matter of chance. If it's really a mistake to think of it as lucky-good maybe it's a nice mistake. Oh but wait, if it's not good, what about my kids? I've discussed this with them actually, and they say Benatar is wrong. :-)
That is too cool. I want to have philosophical conversations with my kids when I grow up and have kids. Wait, I mean, when I have kids.
I wonder how this ties in with the claim that giving farm animals life makes up for whatever suffering is inflicted in slaughtering them (provided they have a resonably "good life"). That causing X to exist benefits X.
Post a Comment