The life-death dilemma

[Attila]

The life-death dilemma

Given there is wisdom in the universe, define the wisest option;

a, Bringing someone into the world; is evil

b, Taking someone out of the world; is evil

c, Stopping someone from living; is evil

A being born.
B being terminated.
C not being born.

note that these are universals, if you apply a rule to e.g. murderers thats not the same as applying it to everyone [e.g. that everyone should die because there are murderers].

I would say that you fist have to deny option c in order to be good, that means you have to go with a, which leaves you with no option about b.

What do you think is the wisest option, or the better option for any given reason?

For example, you may deny option a, by agreeing with option b ~ I.e. by killing everyone you stop all three options from further occurrence, although you are then committing b.

[Attila]

edited op to make things clearer

[Frog]

The life-death dilemma
Given there is wisdom in the universe, define the wisest option;

a, Bringing someone into the world; is evil
b, Taking someone out of the world; is evil
c, Stopping someone from living; is evil

A being born.
B being terminated.
C not being born.

note that these are universals, if you apply a rule to e.g. murderers thats not the same as applying it to everyone [e.g. that everyone should die because there are murderers].
I would say that you fist have to deny option c in order to be good, that means you have to go with a, which leaves you with no option about b.

What do you think is the wisest option, or the better option for any given reason?
For example, you may deny option a, by agreeing with option b ~ I.e. by killing everyone you stop all three options from further occurrence, although you are then committing b.

Quite a difficult question - and one that I don't believe is straight forward to answer.
Allowing someone to end their life, or allowing someone to experience no more pain is also not an evil act. Whilst you are referring to people in this case, I still recall when I had to make the decision to have my cat put down. She was suffering and I could see the pain in her eyes. The vet had taken every course of action they could. I don't feel that this was an act of evil, either for the vet or myself (after all, I was equally culpable).

If I consider applying a rule - that is (say) dealing with habitual convicted murderers - then B would be the also not be evil of the options. Similarly, for those serving in the armed forces and effectively given a "kill or be killed option, then I think they will deal with enough mentally that it is wrong to say that B is the worst.

So then if I have to pick one which is most evil, then it would probably have to be A. We live in a world which is starting to suffer from overpopulation in areas, leading to chronic shortages and one step from chaos and anarchy. But then, the world is also a beautiful place - and who knows if the person that we bring into this world won't just be its saviour?

Frog

[Aitrus]

Interesting question.

I think that there is both good and evil in A, B and C.

In A, it's normally good to bring life. However, for those that aren't able or aren't willing to care for that new life, or bring the new life in order to satisfy some requirement for further gain for themselves (which is increasingly the case in the welfare system in the US), then they have no business bringing that new life. That makes the bringing of life, to a certain extent, evil.

For B, I would say that the unjust taking of life is evil. The problem is that what defines "unjust" is subject to opinion. For some, the taking of a criminal's life is not just, and is in fact cruel and unusual. For others, the taking of a criminal's life is supposted to be cruel and unusual because otherwise it's not an effective deterrent. Some look at is a necessary evil, in that killing a criminal is akin to exorcizing a cancer from otherwise healthy tissue. I also agree with Frog's assessment about military duties. I would add self-defense as being justified, but this is also argued as many see lethal levels of self-defense as unwarranted no matter the circumstance. Out of all of Nature's creatures, humans are the only ones who have qualms about killing to protect themselves or their loved ones.

Situation C...This one is also subject to speculation. In some religions, the taking of your own life for any reason is one of the ways to damn your immortal sould for eternity. For others, it's considered an act of honor to kill yourself. In the first case, it's the duty of all the members to protect somebody from taking their own life because their religions says to do so. In the second case, members are forbidden from stopping the act of suicide. Then there is the case of putting somebody out of their misery. This is very tricky ground, and we see evidence of it in news stories quite often. There is also the issue of abortion which, as we all know, is hotly debated for various religious, moral, scientific and emotional reasons.

A, B and C are all subject to interpretation. I don't think that there is any "wisest option" as you put it. Each person must decide for themselves which of these is evil, which is good, and which is both. I, myself, think that all 3 are both, especially B. I know of several individuals who believed that taking a life was inexcusable. Yet, when faced with the choice of defending themselves or their loved ones, they did what was necessary, and were not repentant about the fact later on.

PS: I also think that there is a point of grey on B. There are options that are neither good nor evil, they just are. Killing an animal in order to provide sustenance, for example. It's just part of Nature's cycle that some animals are meant to die to sustain others. It's the way of things, neither good nor bad.

[Dendrias]

I don't want to pretend to have or give an answer or pretended solution to a dilemma. Not that I even understood the OP!
But may I, Frog and Aitrus, guide Your eye in Your examples to what I call the nature of human being: tragedy. To know - or rather: to judge something evil and at the same time to be aware that it is necessary and ... good to do it, i.e. to act against your own values, is the tragic setup of the world; and humans, as sentient beings, are thrown into it with the head first. Some suffocate, some can't breathe in it, some ... well, pray to the gods for not being in certain situations!

[treegod]

note that these are universals

Aaaah, I see. I got confused wondering why you were saying they were evil. But this is a hypothetical excercise, right?

Given there is wisdom in the universe, define the wisest option;

a, Bringing someone into the world; is evil

b, Taking someone out of the world; is evil

c, Stopping someone from living; is evil

A being born.
B being terminated.
C not being born.

So in saying "wisests option" you're saying "least evil". What is the lesser of these evils?

It's hard to define in abstract terms, I think it all depends on the circumstances. Matters or conscience I think are usually best made in the moment. I can reason all I want but until the moment comes I'll never know. Though I do have principles and try, if I can, to keep to those (ranging from strict to rule of thumb).

In general the "least evil" is A, being born.

I'll try to think up some concrete examples, but in the mean time...

Regarding values of good and evil:

Being born- not evil but good.

Being terminated- more often than not, evil.

Not being born- of neutral value, not existing means their moral value is 0. But if you're talking about a gestating human then the "moral equation" might almost be the same as a person.

I'll expand on these later. Now I my conscience is telling me I should get off the net and walk my dogs lol

[Attila]

Hi Frog,

Overpopulation is a problem of numbers, we wouldn’t wish to stop all life by applying the universal rule, we would just want reduce births.

Euthanasia is a good point, there comes a time when to carry on living is worse than to end it.

‘Would we need soldiers if we didn’t need soldiers’ ~ in other words, because one nation has them then others have to. Equally these days we do an awful lot of attacking in the name of defence. Bit off topic really tho.

Aitrus, hi

It is indeed good to bring life into the world, and if you agree it is evil to stop life from even occurring [oblivion] then as I did in the op that is the right option. I agree there are many ways in which this is limited, e.g. if we all had 15 kids the world would hold a population of 54 billion in a single generation. Yes clearly there are limits, though I don’t think this deny the option for life except in part and as relevant to circumstance.

All of these cases are partial arguments relevant to transient things, c is not about suicide, it about not creating life/universe so that souls wouldn’t have to endure it.

Good answers, but may I point out that they are non interpretive nor subjective, as they are universals the interpretation is only partial and in relation to other things. This is the main point for treating the subject with universals, one can imagine the metaphor where one is god, and we have to make the decision prior to creation [because ‘c’ is part of the equation then we have to take the idea as prior to existent things].

Dendrias

Good point about tragedy! We should I feel factor that in as often wisdom and suffering are like two sides of the same coin. Its then an additional reason to create life, as if we take it all beyond the individual we can look at history art and poetry etc, objectively and impersonally [to some degree].

The story is greater than the characters therein.

treegod

So in saying "wisest option" you're saying "least evil". What is the lesser of these evils?

Ah now that’s a good point, we may ask which is lesser, yet in addition we may also ask which comes first which is obviously c, therefore we would have to commit that evil before we can ask and answer the other two questions. At the same time a and b are very relevant to the answering of c.

In general the "least evil" is A, being born.

indeed.

The Cheshire cat shakes his head with the incomprehension of it

[saphera]

Any attempt at a solution to the life/death question would be only a personal judgement from a personal perspective....an idea that has it's basis in one personal 'Story Book'.
So, are we discussing the plot, the beginning, middle and ending and character relationships in a 'book' we have read or are reading or writing?.... saphera

[DaRC]

But may I, Frog and Aitrus, guide Your eye in Your examples to what I call the nature of human being: tragedy.

Plus remember the equation that Tragedy + Timing = Comedy.

[Frog]

Hi Attila
Just a quick off-topic reply - "Even in times of Peace we should prepare for war". That doesn't mean that because one nation has them the others have to. That just means that we are ready in case they do.

The problem (as I see it) with overpopulation is that we all know that the world is being overpopulated - but even "intelligent societies" are continuing to manifest the cultural rule to extend their own personal tribe.

[Attila]

Just a quick off-topic reply - "Even in times of Peace we should prepare for war". That doesn't mean that because one nation has them the others have to. That just means that we are ready in case they do.

Indeed, we would all have to cut down. Still defence doesn’t mean attack, and we in Britain don’t need such a large and expensive defence budget. The EU should all donate to a European force, limited in size.

The problem (as I see it) with overpopulation is that we all know that the world is being overpopulated - but even "intelligent societies" are continuing to manifest the cultural rule to extend their own personal tribe.

There has to be continual growth in capitalism due mainly to the national debt, the banks have money printed at interest, so every pound printed has interest on it. The amount of interest is thus always more than the amount of money in flotation, so there has to be growth to match that.
There are of course many other factors, like e.g. people simply having to many children. However this is encouraged by most govt or if pop growth doesn’t reach the targets then immigration will.

[Nightfalls]

Indeed, we would all have to cut down. Still defence doesn’t mean attack, and we in Britain don’t need such a large and expensive defence budget. The EU should all donate to a European force, limited in size.

The problem i see is the aggressor nations are not going to cut down just because we do. We cut back our defenses and we give the advantage to the aggressor nations (North Korea, Iran, etc.) who will then press the advantage.

There has to be continual growth in capitalism due mainly to the national debt, the banks have money printed at interest, so every pound printed has interest on it. The amount of interest is thus always more than the amount of money in flotation, so there has to be growth to match that.
There are of course many other factors, like e.g. people simply having to many children. However this is encouraged by most govt or if pop growth doesn’t reach the targets then immigration will.

I believe mainstream society and media contributes to overpopulation too. Shows on T.V. in the US like Jon and Kate Plus Eight, and 18 and Counting, and the coverage of the woman with no job who had 8 kids feels like it almost encourages people to follow in their footsteps. I am perfectly content with 1 boy Even if i have to have a girl or 2 to get one.

The life-death dilemma

Given there is wisdom in the universe, define the wisest option;

a, Bringing someone into the world; is evil

b, Taking someone out of the world; is evil

c, Stopping someone from living; is evil

To answer your original question, i believe C is the most correct.

Bringing someone into the world is not evil, It is human nature to give life. If we do not give life, then we all eventually die out.

Taking someone out of the world can be evil if it is forcefully against their will, but even that is subjective. Perhaps it is not the persons will that they be taken out, but that of a higher power. Yet also, some people believe it is their time to go and want to be taken from this world and pass into the next.

By stopping someone from living, i assume you mean snuffing out the flame of life before it becomes a fire. Some people consider this a very evil thing to do, but i believe it is sometimes a necessity. If a child is being born into a household that cannot support it, or it would be given to an orphanage or foster home, would it not be a viable theory to assume that allowing it to come to term would be more evil then ending it. Also, when does the human "soul" come into play? Is it upon conception? Or perhaps upon Exiting the womb? My earliest memory was when i was 3, did i even have a soul before then? If something has no soul, is it wrong to take its life? Murderers, cereal killers, etc. are sometimes said to have no soul or conscience.

Blah too much thinking hurts yet the quest for wisdom continues on

[Attila]

Nightfalls

The problem i see is the aggressor nations are not going to cut down just because we do. We cut back our defenses and we give the advantage to the aggressor nations (North Korea, Iran, etc.) who will then press the advantage.

Well iran doesn’t have nukes [yet] so they arent a contender, north korea does, but so do we and that’s all we need for such nations [mostly anyways]. Even then the costs would be better spread across the EU, and we could easily save a lot of money by making defence cuts rather than ones that would affect jobs and public services.

I believe mainstream society and media contributes to overpopulation too. Shows on T.V. in the US like Jon and Kate Plus Eight, and 18 and Counting, and the coverage of the woman with no job who had 8 kids feels like it almost encourages people to follow in their footsteps.

I agree. They should make it harder to have more than say 4 kids, via taxes or less benefits. …not sure if they can stop the media, except by changing attitudes.

All a tad of topic tho.

----

To answer your original question, i believe C is the most correct.

What stopping life from happening, or that you have to do ‘c’ [give the potential for life] before one can even decide on a or b.

Bringing someone into the world is not evil, It is human nature to give life. If we do not give life, then we all eventually die out.

True. So if not ‘a’ then ‘b’ in effect. Very good point!

I would conclude that we both have to give life and birth irrespective of death, as to not do so results in death anyway. So next time some nihilist moans, I think I will go over this little set of principles with them.

By stopping someone from living, i assume you mean snuffing out the flame of life before it becomes a fire. Some people consider this a very evil thing to do, but i believe it is sometimes a necessity.

No I was thinking in a god context of taking away the possibility for life so that we don’t have the choice to give birth ~ as we wouldn’t even exist.

If for the other points you refer to abortion, I think that a foetus of any age is an individual entity [in a sense we are all adopted!], hence it is not our choice to destroy it. We have already made ’our’ choice by conceiving, there may be other factors but taking a life is still killing. Sometimes it may be better if we kill a foetus but it’s a terrible thing to do and not to be taken lightly. Often someone who has an abortion will go on to have 4, and a growing trend in america esp, but elsewhere too, it’s a career based choice which I find initially morally abhorrent.
Obviously there are many factors, and we all like a drink, condoms split etc so stuff happens, but as a general guide it is primarily not our choice.

[Nightfalls]

Ah so if in a god concept we never created life, then it cannot be destroyed, therefor nothing evil has been done. So C is not very evil at all. If there is no good (life) then there can be no evil (death).

so B has to be the most correct option.

[Attila]

So C is not very evil at all.

it denies life ~ as all three options do.

[FoxPhantom]

Whoa this is some mind bender.(Hope you guys can understand this. )

So if being born, killing innocents, and taking someone before they were born is evil, then how does being born to live is evil? I mean, if something takes control over one person's life, saying they can't have children. Wouldn't that beat the possibilities of why human experience exist ?

Unless there was great pain, or great illness, they won't be able to survive, the person who is dying should be taken out of misery to feel pain for there last hour. Then again if there was a murder for no reason (even if the person who died is so called evil), then wouldn't the person who killed be doing some thing with ill intentions?

now as for C, IMO I do think it is wrong, but not evil, to deny life to something unborn. Since it was never given a choice, since it has no voice at the moment.
So with all three things that are called evil, I say the least of them is none. since the topic is very wide, and I don't know what else to bring up for it.

[Attila]

if something takes control over one person's life, saying they can't have children. Wouldn't that beat the possibilities of why human experience exist ?

Its an exception to the case and we are dealing with universals [gods decision ~ if you will] hence is irrelevant, in this particular case that is.

A killer is committing the very evil we decide to go against by creating life and giving birth. That is as we have arrived at the conclusion that creation and life are paramount even though death happens.

now as for C, IMO I do think it is wrong, but not evil, to deny life to something unborn.

You are perhaps thinking of ‘unborn’ as foetal, yet I am thinking of it as not creating, so you don’t have people and the earth/existence. This option denies us the option to give birth knowing that our child will die and hence commit both a good and an evil act. As a god [metaphorically speaking] we must first decide upon the creation, before we can decide upon occurrences within that creation. However as all wise we would know that eventually there will be intelligent life and so the other questions become part of the same problem.

I would conclude that wisdom must create an afterlife and or reincarnation, or indeed transmigration [the druidic option Imho].
if not then it creates death, even if that is the necessary result of genetic reproduction.

[treegod]

So C is not very evil at all.

it denies life ~ as all three options do.

How can you deny the nonexistent?

[Attila]

How can you deny the nonexistent?

You are not, you are denying life ~ by taking the option of non-existence.
its like deciding not to give birth/have a child in that respect.

[Druid Faqir]

The life-death dilemma

Given there is wisdom in the universe, define the wisest option;

a, Bringing someone into the world; is evil

b, Taking someone out of the world; is evil

c, Stopping someone from living; is evil

A being born.
B being terminated.
C not being born.

note that these are universals, if you apply a rule to e.g. murderers thats not the same as applying it to everyone [e.g. that everyone should die because there are murderers].

I would say that you fist have to deny option c in order to be good, that means you have to go with a, which leaves you with no option about b.

What do you think is the wisest option, or the better option for any given reason?

For example, you may deny option a, by agreeing with option b ~ I.e. by killing everyone you stop all three options from further occurrence, although you are then committing b.

Side A) Killing is deemed evil on the basis that one takes the life of another who, presumably, wishes to live, for his/her own reasons. On the same logic, deeming suicide evil is a mistake because you are forcing someone to live a life they can't deal with (why else would they put themselves to death?) On the other hand, to say suicide's OK would be a mistake, imho, because then many would do it at the slightest difficulty in life; it would seem very tempting... Or so I (mistakenly?) believe.

Side B) To take the issue of birth, it is not an evil, nor is it good. Birth and death are natural occurences. There is no such thing as rating one above the other as better and worse. We suffer because we, regardless of the time and place of birth, are very rarely helped to grasp the big picture, insted being socialized in such a way as to have a partial view of existence, via the idea of goals: "You must be a good Christian etc" "You must have success in buisness" "You must do this that and the other".

Side C) Not being born is also not an evil; it is neutral. One unborn feels no joy, for he has no form, but also, on the same ground, feels no grief.

Best option: Let things be as they are; don't impose anything on existence, either for life or for death.