Not up, yet. Click on one of the options below, to return to where you came from. Note, before we return: some might object that we have focused on loss in the extreme - that of life, itself. But, suffering can come in forms far less dramatic that this, and benevolence goes well beyond a desire to presere life. Quality of life is an issue, too, not just quantity of it.
To this, reminding the reader that this site is not meant to answer all of his questions, but merely as a springboard to get him to start askin his own, I would offer a partial response as follows : On an individual level, one can esily seperate the quality and quantity of life, as one might put it. But it is on the level of humanity as a mass that the considerations occur, that lead us to moral law, starting from the Rule Utilitarian persepctive which we bring. A life that is not enjoyed is a life which people will not treasure, and one becomes careless with that which one does not treasure. Were life not to be treasured, it would be lost through means that would otherwise be seen as being foolish, and avoided. So, on the level of setting general principle, to care about the quantity of life, one must care about its quality as well.
I would also repeat my refrain, at the risk of tiring the reader, that in Philosophy as in Mathematics, one does far better to focus on the arguments, than on the conclusions. The key point in the argument in "Reason" without Proof is not merely that one affirms the value of life merely by living, as important a point as that is, but that one affirms the valuing of many goods in just this way. Man, until he is damaged by an uncaring outside world, given a good upbringing is prone to become a pleasure-loving creature in the best sense : one who wishes, not only to enjoy pleasant things, but to see that others know this enjoyment as well. That reality speaks to what our instincts really are, even when we succeed in becoming too "enlightened" to admit them to ourselves.
As we pointed out in "Let's party for God", back in the introduction, this opens up the possibility of making love be more than an empty gesture. To continually associate emptiness with a gesture, is to accustom oneself to the notion that the gesture will be empty, and drain the feeling out of it, both the one offering it and the one to whom it is offered. Again, for a social creature who finds so much pleasure in the companionship of others, and does so poorly when deprived of that pleasure, this is a bleak end which will rob him of the enjoyment of life.
As we have pointed out, we have theoretical reasons here, in the context of our argument, to draw the conclusion with our common sense should make clear - that this is a very bad thing. And, seeing as we do, that this conclusion comes from first principles, we assert, without apology, that this is indeed common sense, and not just a personal or cultural perspective. Asceticism pursued for its own sake, Masochism, Bravado and other self-destructive tendencies are pathologies to be treated, not alternative world views meriting our respect. We are to view these things as being part of what it is that we speak of, when we refer to Evil, especially when they have become entrenched in some unfortunate culture as a part of its traditions. When this happens, the time for reform is at hand.
Now, where did you enter this discussion from?
If you would like to link to this article, please be sure to bookmark the following link provided for your convenience :
Interview with a Brave Man