Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ntrails | Hacker News Reader

You can't see why oblivion would be preferable to anything other than, say, extreme chronic pain? I can't imagine that anyone could be so blind.

The yardstick is simple, does continuing to exist seem like something of higher net value than oblivion. The reality of daily existence barely meets that criteria for me, and I can only imagine I have far fewer troubles than most of the world's population.

I often wonder if the majority of people only continue to exist because of social obligations and cultural attitudes. Or maybe they just enjoy more things (such as the exploration you mention) :)

View on HN

That's a circular definition. It's "worth" it because it has "value". Value for what? To whom? Why does it need to have a value? Does a tree or a mountain or a zebra or anything else need a value to justify its existence?

To the person making the decision on whether to continue to exist. Trees may or may not be making such a decision, same with zebras, I neither know nor care.

However, I do make that decision every day. So do you, whether you recognise it or not. Existence is not imposed on me, I have both the ability to know I exist and the means to change that.

In order to obtain value from anything, you have to exist. So, the value of nonexistence is always going to be zero. Unless your current existence has a negative value (i.e. constant pain, severe depression) existence is always preferable. Nonexistence also has the opportunity cost of all the things you can do if you continue to exist.

As I said in other comment, it can be boiled down to the term value/effort (which cannot go negative).

Not existing is 0/0 i.e. indeterminate. Existing can be >= 1 (worth living) or < 1 (not worth living, regardless of how much value you get out of life).

Some people prefer indeterminate to < 1. Is it that unreasonable?

Furthermore, some people assign value to not doing something, even if it's a priori. Not being in constant pain (whether physical or psychical) definitely has some value. In that case, not being alive approaches infinity!

Assuming the value of a life can be assigned a simple scalar quantity seems like an unjustified assumption.

Regardless, I don't think I'm explaining this well. "Value" and "worth" imply that you have some expectation that life has to meet in order to be satisfied with it, that it has to be doing something or accomplishing something. That's not really necessary. Your life, all life, simply is. There's no greater purpose necessary.

> Assuming the value of a life can be assigned a simple scalar quantity seems like an unjustified assumption.

It's not a scalar quantity but a fuzzy one. My point is still valid.

> "Value" and "worth" imply that you have some expectation that life has to meet in order to be satisfied with it, that it has to be doing something or accomplishing something.

Definitely. Why would I live then? It should be doing something: be enjoyable. At the bare minimum.

> Your life, all life, simply is.

So...? I don't follow your point here. Just like it simply is, I can simply terminate it.

> There's no greater purpose necessary.

You're the one who brought a greater purpose here. I don't particularly care about my life's purpose. In fact, if it had a purpose, it could be wrong to terminate it.

> Why would I live then?

That's my point. There is no why. You don't need a why. You do live.

Unless you don't want to.

If your point is "you don't need a why", allow me to say it's a very weak point, because then you don't need a why to suicide either. You don't need a why to anything really.

Also: because you say so?

If your point is that suicide is a reasonable response to life not meeting your expectations, I find that equally weak. You're in charge of your expectations. You can change them, or let go of them altogether.

So why don't you change your expectation of me not expecting anything out of life?

You're in charge of your expectations, leave mine alone!

I have no expectations. Yours seem to lead to a great deal of suffering for yourself, that's why I'm curious as to why you cling to them so fiercely. As you say, you need a good reason to continue doing something. You should stop, e.g. living, if you're not getting anything out of it. If having your expectations is not benefiting you, why not stop having them?

> Yours seem to lead to a great deal of suffering for yourself

I'm not the one suffering over whether anyone else would expect anything out of life or not. I particularly enjoy life, so you are wrong even about that. Too.

But I understand anyone not enjoying life wanting to end it.

> If having your expectations is not benefiting you, why not stop having them?

My body expects air. My body expecting air is not benefiting it underwater. Your conclusion is my body should stop expecting air underwater.

Your logic baffles me.

Your body doesn't expect air. Expecting something is a function of consciousness. Your body doesn't expect air any more than an engine expects gasoline. So no, that's not my conclusion unless you grossly misuse the word "expect".

You can't change your body's need for oxygen. You can change the way you think.

> You can change the way you think.

Nope. Pain is pain. You can't change that.

So all pain is equivalent? Is that what you're saying? Any experience of pain is a rational excuse to kill yourself? I guess if you stub your toe, you may as well end it all, then.

The argument just circled back to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8383247

Yes, and your basic point that if it ever seems to you like you'd be better off dead then you should kill yourself, is frankly, outright irresponsible and idiotic. Especially with a disease like depression where one of the symptoms is that things seem more hopeless than they really are. In a community that has lost more than its fair share of members to suicide, this is a stance I really can't comprehend.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com