In Peter Singer’s article, “Should This Be the Last Generation?,” the question is raised about whether or not life is worth living. Should we really be bringing the next generation into the world or should we “party our way into extinction?” He brings up the fact that because everyone will undoubtedly suffer at some point in his or her life, it must be cruel to bring a child into the world.
I’m not sure if Singer is in desperate need of psychiatric help, but this is an incredibly depressing outlook on life. I’ll admit that he is right in the sense that suffering is inevitable, but the fear of suffering is not sufficient reasoning to end the existence of the entire human race. As cliché as it sounds, suffering is part of life. In fact, it is one of the few things that make life worth living.
"I know that pain is the most important thing in the universes. Greater than survival, greater than love, greater even than the beauty it brings about. For without pain, there can be no pleasure. Without sadness, there can be no happiness. Without misery there can be no beauty. And without these, life is endless, hopeless, doomed and damned."
-Harlan Ellison
Everyone endures suffering at some point in his life, but life isn’t filled with suffering. I completely agree with one commenter that said, “To live is to suffer; but it is all to experience all the pleasure that life has to offer.” There are so many moments of pure love, joy, excitement, and happiness that make those moments of suffering entirely worthwhile. To rid the world of the human race and deny millions of unborn children those moments of exhilaration would be cruel.
Singer brought attention to Benatar’s argument that: “We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states.” Sure, life just sucks sometimes. There are days when I go to bed hating life. However, I can recall plenty more happy memories than bad ones. Those happy memories make life worth living. And even if they really are “insufficient,” to me, they’re worth all of the hardships that I’ve been through. I’m sure the average person doesn’t think back on their life and say, “Wow that sucked. I shouldn’t have been born.” Most would reflect on all of the memories that made them smile. Everyone deserves a shot at creating a life-worth-living.
Additionally, I agree with one commenter who pointed out that if life is truly as miserable as the article makes it out to be, then why aren’t there mass suicides? Anyone can end their own life whenever they please. We don’t need an organized suicide event. Clearly, most people are, in fact, happy with their lives. By continuing to reproduce and exist, we give the next generation the chance to be happy as well. Even if it’s not a guarantee, a chance at happiness of most definitely worth the risk.
Good point of last paragraph. People have that choice and they don't take it. However, Singer is not arguing what is, but what ought to be. What SHOULD we do?
ReplyDeleteThe bulk of the post is on a singular topic -- that Singer miscalculates the balance of happiness. You set him straight. Although this is a common argument among the posts, you argue it better than others. Also, the unity of the prose -- sticking to this one topic -- makes the post hold together better.
I worry, though, that this would just come off as the obvious objection. Remember that part of attracting attention online and having people read you is coming up with ideas that people can't come up with themselves, and I would feel many people would voice similar complaints to Singer.
Good job not choosing the typical image of a baby, as well.
ReplyDelete