I think that the fallacy is to believe that someone is better when they exist than when they don't exist. If they don't exist, they don't feel either bad or good. They just don't exist. Why is nonexistence bad and how do we really define whether a condition is worse than some other condition, especially in this case where there are no feelings involved? How do we know that it is better for someone to exist and be in pain than to not exist and feel nothing?
@plusunim
9 жыл бұрын
+Maria K. What bothered me most is the 'would have been him...', 'would might be that...'; Too many assumptions into the future and about the future without a really solid base. That is a gross assumption at least. In my opinion the problem lies in the intervention/choice/free will of Barbara. We all know and agree - putting aside the real sick-health reasoning - that deliberately making your child sick is morally wrong. The other is a side step from Natural selection - where now Barbara is playing God (hand in hand with the IVF lab). This side step causes instability in the morality that we still harbour from Years ago. Human manipulation to this extent wasn't contemplated in those days and so that action and its effects are not supported in the current morality and is not able to support further changes as it is. Many assumptions that we called 'obvious' yesteryear were taken into account which today no longer hold. There were certain basic assumptions, that were taken as fundamental assumptions because it was thought they were immutable. The effect of geneic knowledge on society needs to be taken into account into today's view of morality. The right/wrong, good/evil mentality needs to be rethought/restructured as if we were seeing through one side of the crystal and now we need to look through another side because we realised that the image we were previously seeing became slightly warped. Was Barbara wrong in being let to choose amongst embryos by following a predetermined plan of hers (of whatever morality charge it harbours)?
@mddevice2108
9 жыл бұрын
+Maria K. I was going to post this exact thought. Non-existence is NOT worse than living. "Billy" in this example is not harmed by not existing, in fact he will experience more suffering from existence than from non-existence... The people that might be born, but weren't because of choices made in the past that prevented them from possibly being born were not 'wronged' by those choices...
@plusunim
9 жыл бұрын
+Md Device Mind you, my reply has more far reaching implications in other areas if we take my problems with choice to the extreme. However, I saw as the fundamental turning point the CHOICE by Barbara. We can argue about existence and non-existence and creating excuses and analysing the outcomes as long as we like; but we would simply be ignoring the very first action. The deliberate conscious choice of the 'rotten' apple amongst others, health-wise speaking. I'm even ignoring the cause for the origin of having such an idea of having a sick person to be the centre of attraction! This is interesting. I need to think more about it.
@nimi8538
9 жыл бұрын
R u a hipster? :P I'm annoyed coz mine is more important coz sorry but how ever the validity of argument or its accuracy... None of even them terms known for had lives worth have existed more than future yet to b. The speculative thinking freedom within responsible Example. Imposed... Damn! Moon n billain power liver of no of self nor nothing else never more.... Horrid When delirious is clearly Of any matter while it's not wanted to b coz it's so awkward N not at alL as challenging as the ways just some says N As if pays any difference their existence otherwise. Some have documents on how many justify existence of comfort only to b upset by some provoking... Social sciences Rule those patterns N doings
@younglonny2220
9 жыл бұрын
+Nimi I don't know if you're trolling because these grammar errors take away from your point to me.
@SpencerThayer
9 жыл бұрын
The non-identity problem is easily solved if you reject the premise that existence is better than non-existence. These are issues people with rose colored glasses have to resolve. The argument from an anti-natalist perspective is certainly compelling and makes the issues of non-identity moot. Additionally one could solve this by rejecting that any assertion either for or against the nature of existence can even be made.
@peculiarnewbie
9 жыл бұрын
part 2 says exactly this
@don9491
8 жыл бұрын
I was going to say this, thanks for saying it for me. I would rather not exist than exist with a horrible disease...
@brackcarmony6385
8 жыл бұрын
But you can't claim that other's lives aren't worth living. You may claim that about your own life.
@brackcarmony6385
8 жыл бұрын
What is if wasn't a horrible disease, what if it was being blond and sunburned easily vs having a darker complexion that doesn't burn as readily? At whatever arbitrary level makes your life less worth living than not having it, but definitely not so bad that you'd not want to live?
@brackcarmony6385
8 жыл бұрын
What is if wasn't a horrible disease, what if it was being blond and sunburned easily vs having a darker complexion that doesn't burn as readily? At whatever arbitrary level makes your life less worth living than not having it, but definitely not so bad that you'd not want to live?
@thatchinaboi
8 жыл бұрын
The non identity "problem" relies on the premise that an existence worth living is necessarily better than non existence, but this may not necessarily be true, as the premise itself is a value judgement. One may hold a contrary view, in which case, the non identity "problem" disappears.
@Arturas002
9 жыл бұрын
Stopped watching at "it's better to exists feeling constant pain and illnesses rather than not exist at all". Now think about it very carefully...
@Gguy061
8 жыл бұрын
+Burgerpants I face palm'd
@lenno15697
4 жыл бұрын
We're using the premise that the level of pain/illness is such that living is preferable than to have not existed. Unless you are of the camp that any level of pain/illness makes life not worth living, I don't see where the objection lies.
@LcDodsondoomer
4 жыл бұрын
@@lenno15697 I agree. There are many people with chronic pain and illnesses who still have an interest in living. This is entirely subjective to the experiencer
@Joel2Million
9 жыл бұрын
Very simple, the philosophy/definition of harm is wrong, also, Alex is a different person because of the pills his mother took, the Alex that exists with health problems wouldn't exist had she not taken the pills, they'd share DNA but almost nothing else. They're identical cases as far as I can see, you can say she harmed Alex by taking those pills but she in fact just created a different person just with the same DNA and Billy is also a different person. In fact every action you take on any person causes a different person to exist.This means we should define harm as something else, literally to produce a less "happy" result than you could without being selfless would suffice.
@2020-p2z
9 жыл бұрын
+Joel Mahon Spot on, Joel. A person is shaped by the events and circumstances of their life. The Alex and Billy that exist because of their mothers' choices are not the same as people who might otherwise exist if a healthier choice was made. Sick Alex might be Healthy Alex, and Billy might be Bob. In both cases, both women wronged their children by intentionally introducing unnesessary suffering into their existences, and in doing so, caused their children to be different people than they otherwise may have been.
@DirtPoorWargamer
8 жыл бұрын
This is only a problem because of the faulty logic that lead to a specific premise; You can not demonstrate that *_any_* life is preferable to never having existed in the first place, let alone this child's.
@DirtPoorWargamer
8 жыл бұрын
Also: how do you define a life worth living? How can you know that *_any_* life is worth living? If you define the most moral course of action to be the one that causes the least amount of harm, not reproducing always wins out.
@Proxyincognito
9 жыл бұрын
This rests on the premesis that not being born, is by definition worse than being born with a handicap, If this example is valid, it is not sound.
@Prolute
5 жыл бұрын
No it doesn't. The video doesn't specify the handicap and works under the premise that the person believed their life was worth living. It doesn't mean that there can't be people who believe their life wasn't worth living, handicap or no.
@pancakepancake3789
4 жыл бұрын
@@Prolute People who believe that their life is worth living despite suffering are arguably biased by the condition of existence. Existence, as the only known reality, tends to make people fearful and intolerant of non-existence.
@mmmtacobaguett
3 жыл бұрын
No, it rests on the premises that not being born is in essence incomparable to being born with a handicap. It rests on a premises that a flawed existence is neither better or worse than non-existence, because non-existence cannot be perceived or experienced. Since no one can ever experience non-existence, it is impossible to define whether it is better or worse than anything.
@TheBoxysolution
9 жыл бұрын
Why can't you just look at the *intention* of having a child with poor health?
@nimi8538
9 жыл бұрын
I kinda sussed that not being as the fixed moral indicator. No? Surely intention, cause, select, impact of action taken stepping in that lead to... Premeditated Or not. Then the time N space navigation N the moral currency rate on given point compared to what set standard or norm. Justice on some sort of reasonable attempt as Ideally as fixed rate? Sponsored. Promoted Sheaksphere overruled odds if jury Intelligence in by prejudism. Blame game or theory of utilism N whatever that stands for.?
@mddevice2108
9 жыл бұрын
+Martin Årvik because that isn't the point of the concept. You might as well replace 'poor health' with 'red hair and freckles' and the thought experiment is identical... the point is that action that changes something is not equivalent to action that allows something to happen...
@TheBoxysolution
9 жыл бұрын
Md Device How do you know? Besides, my point was that the problem becomes obsolete if you view it like this.
@mothman84
9 жыл бұрын
+Md Device You capture the point very well: _an action that changes something is not equivalent to an action that allows something to happen_ The trouble is, looking at our model of causation (the way we think about it, and the way we use it), there are many cases in which changing something or allowing something to happen are indeed the same thing in terms of causal impact. For instance, in the law, letting a man die when you could take actions to save his life, depending on the circumstances, is at best failure to offer assistance, and at worst manslaughter by omission. What this usually boils down to is, if you have a duty to act in preventing something, then allowing something to happen makes you responsible for it just as you would be if the same thing were happening as a consequence of your action. In the specific case of childbirth, the assumption is that there's a duty to do everything possible to ensure a child is born healthy rather than unhealthy. This of course hardly concludes the debate. Everything in the field of ethics is founded on a set of assumptions. Assumptions are good or bad depending on how you feel about them. That you would be wronging a human being by bringing him to life as sick, injured, or deformed, is an assumption. I cannot prove it right or wrong. I can only bring evidence one way or another by arguing from the consequences.
@0cards0
9 жыл бұрын
+Md Device the problem with this problem is that it assumes that people with different genes are intrinsically different, i dont think its the case, life is life, consciousness is consciousness, whether you have the same genes or not, so i think both of the mothers wronged their kids
@JAndersonGhost0326
9 жыл бұрын
If Billy is born with heath defects, isn't that worse than not being born? I was dead for billions of years before I was born, without the slightest inconvenience to me.
@Prolute
5 жыл бұрын
It depends. I was born with marfan syndrome and I'm still very glad I exist. Other people, whether they have defects or not, might wish they were never born. It's irrelevant because this problem only deals with people who believe their life was worth living. If Billy's health problem made him wish he were dead or never born, then he wouldn't be a subject in this problem.
@monkeyking617
8 жыл бұрын
This was already iterated in a comment below, but I think its worthwhile to point out that "existence" and "non-existence", while they seem to be related as opposites, cannot be compared to each other with terms like "better" or "worse". How can we know if not existing would be better or worse than existing? It's like saying, "Cars are better than green". How can we say if it is better to have cars or to have the color green? They cannot be categorized together. When we die, our consciousness ceases to exist, but we then have no way of qualifying our non-existence as being better or worse.
@HaranYakir
9 жыл бұрын
One of the solutions is to reject 4). That is, bringing billy into existence makes him worse off than he would have been had he not existed. I'd argue that that is true for the vast majority of the people who ever lived and who are alive today.
@StefanTravis
8 жыл бұрын
Barbara is causing suffering. That the victim is someone who wouldn't exist without circumstances which simultaneously cause the suffering is a related issue, but a separable one. So who is Barbara causing suffering to? Obviously, her son. What she's causing isn't harm by the usual definition, and we may decide not to call it harm at all. So we can either create a second definition of harm, or come up with a new word.
@g_green338
8 жыл бұрын
Would a Kantian framework provide a satisfactory answer? Since both mothers use their children as a means of garnering more attention for themselves, they reduce their children to a mere means to an end. Hence, Billy's intrinsic value is disrespected. Perhaps our moral intuition tells us that Billy's mom is immoral because she did not perform her actions in accordance with the moral law. Further, what about virtue ethics. Perhaps ensuring that one's offspring suffer is not within the proper role of a mother.
@pmyou2
9 жыл бұрын
This is a fascinating problem that I have not previously encountered. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
@robertrowland1061
9 жыл бұрын
I don't like how this problem is structured. That the genetically impaired boy's life is assumed to be worth living, somehow mitigates the mothers crime, doesn't work for me. It has to be understood that his life isn't necessarily worth living and if so, only because death is the alternative; better to have never existed. It's seems similar to letting a rapist go unpunished because he's willing to marry his hitherto innocent victim to defend her honor against having lost her virginity out of wedlock when there wouldn't have been an issue at all, had he not intervened.
@koohoo4500
8 жыл бұрын
Who says that any life is better than no life at all?
@Prolute
5 жыл бұрын
The person living the life.
@DefenestrateWindows
9 жыл бұрын
Those who do not exist do not have positive or negative positions towards concepts.
@algot34
9 жыл бұрын
+DefenestrateWindows But I think the video is referring to the perspective of those who do exist, since they do have a negative view towards not existing. It is difficult to take the non existing people into consideration, since as you said, they don't have a perspective on the matter.
@DefenestrateWindows
9 жыл бұрын
+algot34 The problem is that it assigns a positive or negative value to existing, when no one can experience nonexistence, and can not say if one would be better off not existing. How can one say that something that cannot be observed or demonstrated, to be better or worse than something else that can?
@SamSprague
8 жыл бұрын
this can also apply to the eating of animals. Most of the cows that exist today would not be alive if it weren't for the fact that they can be killed and eaten.
@zavtrabudetlu4she
5 жыл бұрын
Exactly. Breeding lives like that is cruel.
@philosophicsblog
2 жыл бұрын
This misses the unasserted premise that presumes pro-natalism over anti-natalism-as with the Abrahamic worldview. There is no reason to accept this premise so the third premise is invalid and the false conclusion does not result.
@noahhoag3820
8 жыл бұрын
The cases are equivalent if Alice would not have had Alex if she was unable to reduce the quality of his health.
@mackdmara
8 жыл бұрын
Intent is what makes things wrong. If you intended to kill someone, but failed to kill them (you shot, but your aim was bad), you are still guilty of a crime. If I make a good with full knowledge that it does not work, you have protections as a consumer. Why? Since my intent was to sell damaged goods, you are able to get your money back. When this is a person, not an item, (like a botched surgery) it comes with jail time, money compensation, and/or loss of my right to continue doing what I do (like loss of license). Little Billy is a man made item, and a person. A doctor, maybe Barbara, made him that way. Both Barbara and/or the doctor could face jail time, fines, or loss of privilege. His daily pain is a clear damage to him because she chose to do the damage. Also if Barbara and/or the doctor intended him to be in pain and fail (he is perfectly fine) they still are guilty. I personally would forgive, but that does not make it right.
@Hamatabo
8 жыл бұрын
the question is not is it okay but is it okay if he wouldn't have existed otherwise it is obviously not okay
@lenno15697
4 жыл бұрын
You can easily reframe the problem around intent. Just saying intent is what makes things wrong doesn't actually solve the core aspect of the problem. Consider the following premises: 1. Barbara intended to harm Billy 2. If Barbara wronged Billy, the way she wronged him was by intending to harm him 3. The only way she could've intended to harm Billy is by intending to make him worse off than he otherwise would've been 4. Barbara did not intend to make Billy worse of than he otherwise would've been. By the same logic, these four claims are incompatible, so you have to reject one. Rephrasing it around intent does not solve the core problem.
@zetsumeinaito
8 жыл бұрын
-.- hmm... The nonidentity problems exampled all suffer from ignoring motive while trying to rationalize the choice, as well as personal bias. Not to mention both are using nonidentity as a shifting goal fallacy. Being a nonentity doesn't mean you are better or worse off than existing, regardless of personal feelings. It's just personal bias that thinks existing is better than not. If you didn't exist, you wouldn't even think it was good or bad. What Billy thinks about his existence, and what people think about his existence is really irrelevant. Likewise with Alex. There's the false assumption that he would exist but healthy if Alice didn't take those drugs. In fact he probably wouldn't have existed as Alice wanted a broke baby. No method to get broke baby means no baby. It would be different if Alice decided to break her baby after having confirmed she was pregnant, but then that would give an unequal scenario to Barbara who decided before getting pregnant. In the environment case, nonidentety isn't an issue either. the Personal bias is preventing thought on a societal level, as well as ignoring the future when choosing to pollute. Why do people choose to pollute instead of save the environment to begin with? For Immediate profits, every time. What's better for the human race, what's better for the planet, what's better for you now, and what's better for you in the future generally don't line up. Present bias almost always wins. And it's rarely the best choice.
@TheGerogero
9 жыл бұрын
It seems to me that this line of thinking believes Billy (or his correlate) to be somehow metaphysically remarkable. The health of _a child_ is what we are concerned with, not _Billy_ and his overrated idiosyncrasies.
@varet-markushinfernalshade5904
8 жыл бұрын
While this is an interesting topic, i personally find a big flaw in the logic applied. Why assume that nonexistence is worse than a painful existence (or any existence)? Yes, if you ask random people if they would prefer nonexistence, the majority will probably answer 'no', but i ask this: how can they (or anyone) know? In order to choose something from something else (in this case existence/nonexistence) one must at least have a partial knowledge of the two choices in order to compare them and decide which one they want. Not only this is impossible in this case, but i will argue that (from an empathic and/or humanistic perception (and this is an irony coming from a misanthrope such as i am)) it is better to not have any experiences at all (and thus, not know and/or care about what one might have experienced) than have those experiences tainted by negativity. In my opinion an action should be judged by the actor's intention and not the outcome (direct or indirect).
@Prolute
5 жыл бұрын
Isn't the logical conclusion of that that killing people isn't morally wrong, since you're ending their existence and non-existence can't be said to be worse than existence?
@cr1197
2 жыл бұрын
@@Prolute Not necessarily. The logic applies to a nonexistent entity. Once an entity exists, they are fundamentally different than one that has never existed.
@chriscanon8829
2 жыл бұрын
This depends entirely upon one's own ontology. If someone doesn't believe that existence happens only once, that consciousness inhabits a body regardless of its state of mind or body, and not a unique thing, then both are equally wronged.
@williamwhitehouse9948
8 жыл бұрын
I would resolve the paradox by taking "Harming the individual" (Which doesn't happen) to be a different thing to harming the system (for want of a better word). Having a health child is better than having an unhealthy child which is better than having no child. So while having an unhealthy child is good for the system overall and by the stated problem good for the child, it is not the most preferable state for the system and therefore can be seen as harming the system. Same goes for the polluting problem
@you_just
8 жыл бұрын
And as the "default" for Barbara would have been to have a healthy child, then her action is leaving the "system" worse off than had she not made that choice.
@archbishopmactasty76
8 жыл бұрын
I see where you are coming from and i think that he was still wronged. His mom wronged him because she knowingly gave him the disease. That intent made it wrong and every other point is irrelevant. I am not saying that inetnt is the sole thing to base things like punishment off of in real lifeb ut in this controlled thought experiment were you gave us all the factors that would affect those kids intent is all that mattered. Even if the mother chose the wrong gene or whatever she was still wrong because of her intent to harm.
@Gguy061
8 жыл бұрын
philosophy is good at ignoring circumstance and particulars. A good parent should want the best for their child. The fact they would consciously choose for them not to have the best, assuming that it's not for the greater good, is immoral. *There's limits to how much this circumstance says about things in other contexts*
@imagendes
8 жыл бұрын
hi Mr wireless philosophy i would like to comment my answer but only if you address it directly i don't like talking to 3rd parties & other commentators you made the video is you who i want to comment to.
@torosalvajebcn
6 жыл бұрын
This scenario reminds to a movie I saw with Jhon Goodman. A mother told her son " my father fled nazi germany and came to the US nd her he met my mother". Her son answered " so we must thank Hitler to have been born".
@pranjaligupta1550
6 ай бұрын
what do you mean by ' a life worth living' ? Isn't that subjective? The example used to explain non identity problem itself has problem according to me.
@filrabat1965
9 ай бұрын
1. If the person doesn't exist, then there's no person being harmed. 2. Goodness (as in pleasure, joy, great feelings) is important *only* to the extent that it doesn't cause badness, especially to others (stricter standard: *only* to the extent that it's a unavoidable by-product of keeping badness from getting worse). 3.This means the pre-existing non-living molecules that would have otherwise been part of the living person won't feel bad about not experiencing pleasure.
@Stew282
8 жыл бұрын
In selecting Billy, Barbara has caused the non-existence of all the other viable embryos. So she had a choice whether Billy would be healthy or not and she chose not (assuming that she would have named any son "Billy"). The non-identity issue is irrelevant, because at the point of making the choice, none of the potential children existed - they were equal non-identities. In selecting an unhealthy embryo, she caused harm to her potential child - she had a choice. That that particular embryo wouldn't have developed into a child is negated by the fact that whichever embryo she selects will prevent the development of all the others.
@vicino.
8 жыл бұрын
Help me understand your point of view: you introduced a "new identity", which is the potential child, whose actual identity will correspond to the embryo we select. Thus, selecting a flawed embryo harms the identity of the potential child. Doesn't that force you to always select the best embryo? Moreover, had a worse embryo been selected by mistake all the same, isn't the life of this individual worth living anyway? If the answer to the second question is yes, you kind of automatically have to answer no to the first one. (I think?)
@vicino.
8 жыл бұрын
ups sorry, the second video addresses the point you're making, hadn't watched it yet
@Stew282
8 жыл бұрын
Vinicius Da Silva Nor have I. Let me know what it says!
@you_just
8 жыл бұрын
+Stew Taylor why not watch it
@Stew282
8 жыл бұрын
You_just Can't be bothered at the moment. Might get round to it sometime!
@Salex684
Жыл бұрын
Even if Billy wasn’t wronged, what about the other embryos that weren’t born? Based on the same premises, you chose for them not to exist.
@ishitasareen1160
6 жыл бұрын
I was reading Benatar, and he just assumes that a lay reader knows about such complexities. But you explained it so well! I cannot thank you enough.
@valeriobertoncello1809
7 жыл бұрын
I strongly disagree. Not existing is infinitely better than living a life of suffering. And I'm not saying that everyone should now go and commit suicide before something bad happens... that would miss the whole point of _avoiding_ the most suffering possible. It just seems evident, to me, that you can't suffer from non-existing (because you don't exist!) and the only way to suffer is existing. So indeed, Barbara shouldn't choose to give birth to Billy, knowing he wouldn't have an healthy life, and we surely shouldn't cause the possible existence of unhealthy people by polluting the environment.
@Google_Censored_Commenter
3 жыл бұрын
This is such a stupid non-problem. For starters I don't accept the premise that polluting magically causes people to fall in love with and have genetically different babies. But even if I do accept this premise, why does it matter? Fact is, *some* people will live in 200 years. Whether the humans are different in case A from case B does not matter, because you didn't meaningfully argue for why they are different. And thus, they are indistinguishable from each other in that sense.
@bbluva21
8 жыл бұрын
Least justified philosophical problem ever. Clearly nobody working on this problem was a proper Nihilist, because it operates under the assumption that all life is worth living. This is a subjective opinion that deserves addressing. Billy never asked to be born.
@DeltrusPoE
7 жыл бұрын
This is dumb, the two starting examples are the same. A child doesn't think about his DNA as part of his identity, so you really could swap out for different DNA and it would be the same kid. Memories and upbringing are greater barriers between "people who do and do not exist".
@pancakepancake3789
4 жыл бұрын
The last "twist" ignores at least three obvious facts: 1) if society decides not to protect the environment there will still be people who exist despite society's decision to pollute - the conditions of pollution will cause these people to be worse off than they would have been, had the Earth not been polluted. 2) Humans are not the only organisms of value. The decision to pollute does great harm to virtually all species, plant and animal, who receive little if any benefit from economic growth in the human population. 3) If pollution eventually kills all life on Earth then it creates non-existence for all living organisms, rather than just for those who wouldn't otherwise be born to those who profit from industries that pollute.
@MonsterManStan
8 жыл бұрын
Thank god I don't have to worry about not eating animals anymore!
@bennymalone
2 жыл бұрын
This argument relies on the idea of existence compensating or cancelling out the act of harm. Am I missing something? I really can’t see how this is a valid argument
@deliciousdishes4531
9 жыл бұрын
Climate Change isn't really a good example here though, since it actually DOES worsen the life of people while they are living it.
@vegetax6
9 жыл бұрын
+Platinum Bard I think you're right but I believe she is restricting the example to only the argument against pollution that says it will harm people in the future(200 years), rather than the overall argument(s) against pollution/climate change. In other words, she is only attacking that singular claim.
@deliciousdishes4531
9 жыл бұрын
Shelby Avila That is probably the least brought up argument though.
@nimi8538
9 жыл бұрын
No. Soc justify maurice strong. They crucified for ya sins
@deliciousdishes4531
9 жыл бұрын
Nimi what?
@vegetax6
9 жыл бұрын
+Platinum Bard You're totally right. Again in terms of the actual climate change debate, it is small and would be entirely misleading to try and represent the debate via this one off claim. I think she was just aiming to find a claim that had a long time period in it and would make the topic seem practical by relating it to a such a live debate.
@gart76
9 жыл бұрын
The whole problem is so dumb first of all why is having a life better than not having one? you are just assuming that it is the case because you don't know any better and second of all, we take decisions based on what we think is best at the moment. We cannot take into account all the theoretical lives that won't be created or will come to life, it is just impossible to live our everyday life that way.
@Abraxis86
6 жыл бұрын
Is this something people don't do? I thought this was just second nature. Are these guys pulling my leg for views?
@commentercommenting6963
8 жыл бұрын
these videos are so needlessly slow and prudent. there are only a couple premises in the entire argument so its ridiculous to waste time and extend it further than only a minute or two. its also painfully obvious that the argument isnt to pollute the environment so i dont need a cat to patronizingly tip that the environment shouldnt be polluted.
@joegame4576
8 жыл бұрын
so would people blaming God for creating humans in a world full of evil fall under the nonidentity problem?
@IIRemy
9 жыл бұрын
_"Barbara did not make Billy worse off than he otherwise would have been"_ _"than he otherwise WOULD have been'_ notice how there are more than two available options here: to exist at all, to exist with ailments, and to exist with minimal ailments (and all the gradations in-between). _'WOULD have been'_ makes it sound as though the only courses of action that were available to barbara were 'make a sick child' or 'make no child.' But conceivably barbara might have had the "make a child with minimal ailments" option available to her, and so in her not choosing that option (or some other better option), her actions might be considered relatively unethical. also, 'not existing" seems to be non-preferential only AFTER you exist (in most cases,) so i'm not so sure i'm convinced of the idea that 'existing--full stop' is inherently more preferable to 'not existing'.
@Max10192
9 жыл бұрын
+IIRemy But it is make a sick child or no child at all, since we are talking specifically about Billy. If she chose to have a child with minimal ailments, then that child would not be Billy.
@IIRemy
9 жыл бұрын
+Max10192 good point actually, i guess that also calls into question the ontology of the self
@IIRemy
9 жыл бұрын
+Sach966 oh i see. you've illustrated it very clearly, so thank you
@patrickcrosby3824
7 жыл бұрын
To put this as politely as I can, this is a paradigm case of why non-philosophers (rightly) laugh at and ridicule academic philosophers. The "problem" being discussed here, the so- called "non-identity problem" is a pseudo problem, one which itself might be characterized as lacking an identity, because the "problem" here is not a real world problem at all that any real people could ever identify with. Harmless babble then? No, because first of all, this kind of nonsense detracts from real world ethical problems, involving real people (e.g., people being denied health care, voting rights, the right to live without fear of drone strikes, and so on), not hypothetical scoundrels like the two hypothetical disgusting non-women discussed here. Just one specific point to demonstrate how ridiculous the discussion here really is, and how easily it can be shot down. The uncritical dogmatic assertion that "harm" means nothing more and nothing less than making someone "worse off" than they would have otherwise been. This is so sophomoric and full of holes as to be laughable. Even a pseudo intellectual like Ayn Rand could have done better than this. Specifically: Who is to make this judgment? On what basis is the "judge" to make this judgment? Empirically? When only one of the two is concretely realized? The only one who could possibly make such a determination is the victim, but by the time the judgment is made, it's too late to do anything about it. Again, reductio ad absurdum. Or if A kills B, aren't there some who would say B was "in a better place?" Thus, based on the "logic" (or pseudo logic) outlined in this video, murdering someone doesn't necessarily harm the deceased. On the contrary, he or she has been transformed into a pure soul! Isn't that bleeping wonderful? Without the action of the murder, that pure soul wouldn't be a pure soul, on who resides with the Lord! Would he? Qua pure soul, he owes his "existence" to the murderer! Wow! but Isn't this the sort of "reasoning" used by those who one burned heretics like Joan of Arc and Giordano Bruno alive? You all know that it is. But today,, this goes well beyond a lonely old heretic (or unfortunate Salem witch) here and there. If you accept the framework of analysis proposed in this video, you're better than half way to the point of judging genocide against millions (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq) to being morally acceptable. Wasn't this, at one time, called "being a good German?" I think so!
@CrystaTiBoha
8 жыл бұрын
This is ridiculous. "Otherwise would not have been..." is rather unscientific. How do you know that? It almost looks like the hypothetical Billy's mother spun the story in such a way as to look less guilty, which the philosopher making this video accepted. Why are you comparing a bad sperm intentionally to not choosing any? Why not to choosing a good one? Also, looking in the future, Billy is significantly worse off than Alex because he CANNOT have genetically healthy children. So he can either have none or be as cruel as his mother was.
@Sardonac
8 жыл бұрын
+CrystaTiBoha If you pay close attention you'll see that these questions are answered in the video or irrelevant to the issue being discussed. Based on the mother's preferences she will either have a child with the bad sperm or no child at all. Those are the only options practically available in the scenario.
@Phi792
6 жыл бұрын
this incredibly smart
@blizzmen
9 жыл бұрын
+Wireless Philosophy I find 2 Points that would solve this (i guess) 1.) Life does not have an intrinsic value (existence>non-existence) and 2.) That such a judgment makes no sense from the non-existing point of view. Billie might say that he would rather exist than not exist, but he can only make such a statement if he already exists. For a non-existing being to prefer existing is like saying that an existing being could truly prefer not existing. I am sure that Buddhism and Taoism have even better explanations for this, but in a western analysis, simply being an Atheist solves this problem. Heideggers "Geworfenheit" explains it also, in a way. To the environmental problem: comparing either an ill population or no population (when polluting the environment) is not correct. While those people might not exist, others, that would exist in a non-polluting-scenario would not exist in the polluting-scenario. So it is really just about comparing a healthy vs an ill population, and then the answer should be easy.
@blizzmen
9 жыл бұрын
addictedkoala But existing people making this statement about Billy is biased. Saying that existence *must* be in some way better than non-existence would require for us to be able to evaluate both states, which we can't. To atheism: as purposeful creation (of humans or the world) would be the only way for life to have an inherent value or goal, being an atheist means denying this kind of underlying value that would make existence objectively preferable compared to non-existence.
@blizzmen
9 жыл бұрын
addictedkoala but doesn't the whole argument fall apart if one of the "facts" is not acutally a fact?
@blizzmen
9 жыл бұрын
addictedkoala I do see your point. But unless we don't mean the same thing by "premise", then i would believe my criticism to be valid. Because if you want to make the claim that is necessary for the definition of "harm" that is used in the video then you need to state that existence is strictly more valuable than non-existence. Obviously it is not productive to pick at points of an argument that aren't significant to the point that its making itself, but isn't this fact significant for this argument?
@blizzmen
9 жыл бұрын
addictedkoala Thanks for the explanation. In the case of the divine command theory i would rather say that ethics don't exist, but i suppose to a theist they might be one and the same. And as you have pointed out, i do see it more as a metaphysical problem (which is also why i don't really agree with your wording "no life is worth living). I just meant that existence itself has no value, an already existing life can very well have some kind of value (that is created by oneself). But since the video was proclaiming that simply because Billy could have had a life, therefore he is worse off by not having ever lived. This is actually i problem that also concerns abortions. As people who argue that killing a fetus effectively destroys the potential value of that fetus' life, would then be obligated to constantly reproduce. Since they would themselves make a person not-exist every (circa) 40 weeks. Of course some might see a difference between a sperm/egg and a fetus, but really essentially there is non. Just like the video argues: by not choosing to carry the defect sperm the kid would be worse off.
@noexception9598
Жыл бұрын
Why the volume of every video is so much down please increase the volume..
@WirelessPhilosophy
Жыл бұрын
Thanks, we tried to fix it with the last set of videos we released. Hopefully the new content has better audio!
@jose_500
8 жыл бұрын
haha oh my god, I had to turn my brain boosters on to follow the last part, because you went into the implications pretty quickly - what a great twist! awesome puzzler video. great job.
@schwarzertee7586
8 жыл бұрын
well this whole problem seems to me just relevant if you messure it AFTER someone was born. Yes, if there is a human, his life is most likely worth living. but the sperm doesnt give a fluffy ball about it. If you ask a sperm if it "wants" to live you embarass yourself because it wont answer in any way. It has no consciousness or any form of thinking or feeling. It is a programmed cell. Therefor for it not-existing would not be a problem or a loss in any way. So our Billy sperm would not ask or prefer to exist. It would just go lost at a session of fapping. Or it would not have made it in the race against other sperms. Same for the pollution scenario: Yes it is more likely that other people ARE born after the events or in result of the events but does it matter? No. Wether we have Lissy and Heinz who live in a polluted area or Thomas and Anna who live in a non-polluted environement does not matter at all. Sure, when both are born and confronted with the idea "let's travel back in time, change the decision into the opposite but in result you wont exist anymore" both couples would disagree because they want to exist. But if we now have to make the decision we dont have to consider them because if they never come to be they never develop the want to exist in the first place.
@blackmetalmagick1
6 жыл бұрын
First off, non-existence is not bad. Non-existence never harmed anybody. A better analogy would be if a pregnant woman ate loads of sugar laden things, smoked etc. She didn't intentionally want to harm the child, but if that child was born with brain cancer, and those were the cause of it, it would come under Non-identity.
@cliffordhodge1449
7 жыл бұрын
I like very little about how this is framed. First, how is nonexistence a bad thing? If, A fails to come into existence, who is the aggrieved party, who has standing to file a complaint? Second, Billy's mom may have chosen existence for him, but she also chose to increase the sum total of suffering in the world - she could have chosen less suffering for the child she would have, whomever he may turn out to be. This parallels nicely with Rawls' veil of ignorance paradigm, which is meant to show how we might, in theory, choose best for any particular (unspecified) person. Billy's mom has chosen suffering for one in order to (she believes) enhance her happiness. The cases are identical in this respect: Motivated by a desire for personal gain, each mom chooses an (as yet inchoate) life of suffering for a person she cannot refer to except by using description which is mere disguised ostension ('the child I will have, whoever he may be"), when she could choose a life of less suffering.
@nimi8538
9 жыл бұрын
I protect asthma Pls. Trick them of greater good than self good 4. If to total cost even. So... The last statement if correct heard, Had we decided protect environment had these people not lived at alL.... Whos n whos Who to protect? Don't interact b4 fingerprint of consequences.. Insurance company i side against them rigid lines regulations if criss-cross. That sure is. Cross
@spookywizard4980
8 жыл бұрын
Couldn't the answer lie to how you approach the problem? Or is it simply a problem of the specific individual? Mentally we approach it from a higher perspective, Barbara chose to have a kid that would suffer rather than one that would not. That is where we see fault. It could be solved simply by changing our conditions for what constitutes a life worth living. Or existence is better than nonexistence.
@houstonnewman4196
9 жыл бұрын
I am inclined to reject to fourth premise. Barbra did make Billy worse than he otherwise would have been. Here is why: 1.) the presence of pain is bad 2.) the presence of pleasure is good 3.) the absence of pain is better than the presence of pain 4.) the absence of pleasure is not better or worse than the presence of pleasure (This isn't my idea, it's David Benatar's) There is an asymmetry between (1) & (3) and (2) & (4) that seems to solve this problem. In any realistic case, it's better for billy to never have existed.
@you_just
8 жыл бұрын
Nonexistence isn't that bad. But we have to think of this on a more spiritual level. Is Billy the embryo, or the soul? If Billy is the embryo then he is already existent. As a cell, he is alive and therefore existent. All Barbara is doing is continuing his life. But that brings up tons of questions. Is every human that could ever have existed just one of the lucky few embryos that got the chance to live? But if Billy is a soul, then it gets even more complicated. When does the soul join the physical body? Is the soul tied to the body? Can a soul tied to an embryo switch to a new body, or does it cease to exist?
@mothman84
9 жыл бұрын
So, in other words, _an action that changes the way something happens is not equivalent to an action that allows something to happen which would not have happened at all._ The trouble is that contradicts the very way we make sense of causation. There are many cases in which, in terms of causal impact, changing something or allowing something to happen are indeed the same thing, because we have some other reason to make it so and treat it as such. For instance, in the law, letting a man die when you could take actions to save his life, depending on the circumstances, is at best failure to offer assistance, and at worst manslaughter by omission. What this usually boils down to is, if we have a duty to prevent something from happening, then allowing it to happen makes us responsible for it. By not acting, we act. In the specific case of childbirth, the assumption is that there's a duty to do everything possible to ensure a child is born healthy rather than unhealthy. This of course hardly concludes the debate. I love this idea; but Christians, for example, tend not to like it very much. Everything in the field of ethics is founded on a set of assumptions. Assumptions concerning right or wrong are good or bad depending on how you feel about them. That you would be wronging a human being by bringing him to life sick, injured, or deformed, is an assumption. I cannot prove it right or wrong. I can only give evidence that it's right by arguing from the consequences; I can only define such an assumption in terms of something else. The argument that is repeatedly put forth in this presentation, that certain people would not exist _at all_ if events had unfolded differently, and that existing is always in itself better than not existing, also brings forth two assumptions, and they are arguably bad ones! For one thing, as humans, we should share a responsibility and take an interest in the quality of life of humanity as a whole. And for another, for those too selfish to invest in anyone's pain but their own, all humans will call themselves "I," and so, in that way at least, they will all be ""YOU" and "ME". The healthy boy who could be born in place of Billy _would be Billy!_ He'd probably be even called Billy... We set far too much store by this skin-encapsulated resonance of our nervous system we call the ego. It too is a mere assumption, just as good as the next.
@michaelransom820
8 жыл бұрын
There is more to consider than just the mother and the child, there is the harm to society to consider as well. Although it is clear that Alice's actions are more morally objectionable than Barbara's, by choosing to bring into existence, by choice, a child with ill health, Barabara is harming the society she lives in. Now the harm to society argument is a difficult and even dangerous thing to try and quantify, but it is clear that billy will burden those who are tasked with caring for him (medical resources, extra attention etc.), and of course the opportunity cost associated with what could have been done had those resources been allocated elsewhere. But I caution taking this too far. The reason i say this is that, while it is relatively easy to quantify the tangible costs of the consequences of free choice, it is harder to quantify the benefit of living in a society that does not limit your freedom to choose. Also, it is nearly impossible to predict unforeseen benefits. Going back to our example, just because a child is sickly does not mean he/she will not contribute to society in profound ways; Just look at Stephen Hawking. In the end ,my take on this is that there is a moral spectrum, and the answer to the nonidentity problem comes down to measuring the overall potential harm vs the overall potential good. In practice this means that it is probably best to allow people to be free to make choices as they see fit, but with limits. Regulation for when the consequences of those actions are without doubt going to cause more harm than good. As for Barbara; as stephen colbert put it, her actions "are like a pony tail on a balding man; It may not be illegal, but it sure doesn't look good!"
@ericpiteau50
3 жыл бұрын
The non-identity problem is a false dilemma because it deals with “after the fact” future unknowns. The fact the mother meant to harm her child’s future is an intentional act of bad faith. Whereas, to later assess the child’s existence once the child exist, is a separate issue all together. I.e. He is most certainly worse off than if she wouldn’t have sabotaged his future.🤷🏻♂️
@arielhernandez140
8 жыл бұрын
The nonidentity problem can be solved, in this case Barbara has a project, have a kid, the kid has a purpose, to give sense in Barbara's existence, this maybe to repair a relationship, or to fulfill the need to become a mother, etc. You have to go back and analyze Barbara's family tree and see where the biological makes the emotional connection according to birthdates in the family. there is always a reason for someones existence, no one is here on this earth by chance. We can now decode our emotions and subconscious and it is a marvelous eye opener. Sorry for my broken english.
@jeremygodwin4069
6 жыл бұрын
What pointless nonsense. How do you come to the conclusion/assumption that a non existent being has a desire to exist? Especially when you consider that some existing beings say that they wish they were never born. There's also the saying "the kindest thing you can do for your child is to not have it". Suffering is a part of life, not non existence. The other thing to note is that it is possible for a being (even a human) to not have the problem of self identification. The non identity is then not a problem at all, perhaps more so a solution...the enlightened egoless mind
@DeltrusPoE
7 жыл бұрын
Different foods and drugs cause epigenetic changes to DNA. Another reason why the two kids are the same, the result and intention is what matters, not the method.
@espenbjerke1905
2 жыл бұрын
this is utter bs
@km1dash6
4 жыл бұрын
The intuition here assumes mind-body physicalism. If you say that a parent provides a body for a soul to enter into, then both mothers harmed their children by intending to provide a body for their child that dooms them to a life with more than necessary suffering. Same goes for the rest of the non-identity problems. The people who will be born in the future could be the same souls, but with different bodies, and different environments.
@J4-4J-J4
9 жыл бұрын
Here's a better way to explain it: A Father has learned his son will be mentally and physically handicapped from birth. He now has 4 options: 1) Keep the son and watch him live a miserable handicapped life 2) Not have the child at all 3) Have a healthy child through another woman 4) Have both the handicapped and healthy child Option #1: The mentally and physically handicapped child doesn't know the misery he will endure his entire life, the father can only develop an opinion of moral righteousness based on himself and the world around him. The only one who can truly make a decision about the value of his life is the handicapped child who may not ever be able to make a decision because of his handicap and also is not born. But it would seem that having life is better for him than not existing whatsoever because he can experience life beauties however only to a flawed degree. Option #2: A question of if the avoidance solution has a moral or ethical ground to stand on. A consequentialist would choose this option. Reasoning would be: Better for society, better for my own situation, saves the kid a lot of trouble... etc. Option #3: This is probably the core of the "nonidentity problem". If the healthy child's existence is worth having, and no one else's interests are at stake, why can't the father just choose to have a healthy child through another woman? It would be better for the universe, the family wouldn't be burdened by the handicapped child, it would be less of a burden on the health care system. But since the handicapped child would enjoy some degree of life in the first place, maybe being born handicapped is in his best interest, yet the father believes otherwise for his own moral conviction? On what grounds are his ethical beliefs justified, do they apply to this situation, and how can he decide for someone else who does not exist yet? Option #4: If the father chooses to have both children wouldn't it be good for both children, but strenuous for the mothers and society? A consequentialist would not choose this option. The bigger questions become: - What elements determine what is good? And good for whom? Who determines the definitions and degrees of "harm" and "bad" To me it seems like person 1 has power to influence through his or her own internal moral/ethical beliefs & has external worldly experiences affecting his viewpoint. Person 2 sees life itself as a win. So what gives person 1 any right to have any decision making power on person 2? Person 1 is simply in a situation where he or she is forced to morally decide on various choices for a future-flawed currently non-existing person 2. It's better to accept that future-flawed person and give him/her autonomy to exist at a future date in time. Better to avoid having that person fit a societal conclusion or your own personally developed belief system
@sacmakiz
9 жыл бұрын
Solution is VEGANISM baby 💚✌
@MidlifeCrisisJoe
9 жыл бұрын
Hmmm. This also seems to be part of the "Guilt of your Progenitors" problem in larger society. I often see whole groups feel guilty over a past wrong that their ancestors did - in the US it's Slavery, in Germany it's the Holocaust, in Japan it's the Imperial years, the list goes on - but the simple fact is that if they didn't do those actions then it would be a different group of people in place than the ones today feeling guilty. In all sorts of ways, the choices of the past create the context of the present, and I think the guilt felt by modern people over their progenitor's choices may be societal version of the non-identity problem. You wouldn't be you if you're an American born into a world where Slavery didn't occur; you'd be someone else. To some degree you owe your existence to the immoral slavery of the past. This is why you feel guilty. At the same time, it's also the defense against guilt. You wouldn't be you if you were born in a world where Slavery didn't occur, you'd be someone else. To some degree you owe your existence to the immoral slavery of the past. This is why you're glad, don't mind or care that it happened. Hmmmm.
@lenno15697
4 жыл бұрын
Very interesting problem. My intuition would be to say that Barbara did not wrong Billy (thus rejecting the first premise), and I'd personally go with "Barbara having a healthy child" > "Barbara having sick Billy" > "Barbara having no child".
@farbe3970
7 жыл бұрын
There is a notion of a project. The project consists the phases starting from the planning and ending with the dissolution. And identity of what the project is devoted to comes to existence with the project itself. For example a project "Building of the House" or "creating a Baby". In those cases the object (Identity) of the project 1 is "the House" and object (Identity) of the project 2 is "the Baby". Now if a project manager makes the project worse off on the planning phase we can state he/she harmed the project and thereby the object of the project. The same as if he/she did it on the implementation phase of the project.. So since project is started each action counts towards the final embodiment of the identity.
@DarkShadows713
8 жыл бұрын
The thing is, you have to decide what you believe about: •Whether Billy's life is worth living •What you believe about nonexistence •Whether you believe in reincarnation, or some similar belief that the essence of Billy would've gone somewhere else
@0cards0
9 жыл бұрын
the problem with this problem is that it assumes that people with different genes are intrinsically different, i dont think its the case, life is life, consciousness is consciousness, whether you have the same genes or not, so i think both of the mothers wronged their kids
@TheOtisUpham
9 жыл бұрын
I enjoyed the thought process and understand the problen but I don't get why you think solving this problem would do anyone any good. what would a solution even look like
@Kabitu1
8 жыл бұрын
If anything, this seems a good case simply that the end result is not the entirety of a moral action, but that intend matters. Billy could have been born by accident, and the exact same physical events could have happened to him, without us calling that a moral crime on Barbaras part. Her intend is what matters.
@reallydoe2052
2 жыл бұрын
Hi Molly
@LTYK4011
4 жыл бұрын
Am I right to say the example you provide tends to assume personality on DNA, there for saying if Billy had any other DNA he would not have existed? But that depends deeply on one asnwere to the idea of personhood.
@skun406
7 жыл бұрын
The statement "Billy is not the same person as alternative Billy" seems like an assumption to me. Dropping this assumption solves the problem and the harm is clearly there.
@km1dash6
5 жыл бұрын
When Barbara was selecting genes for her son, how did she know Billy would have a life worth living. It seems like in the second case, what makes her actions wrong is that she had an intent to bring about a child with a sickness for her own benefit. The harm is in her purpose for having a child: to benefit herself, rather than to have a child and want to give them love and happiness.
@boanoitequerida
4 жыл бұрын
I appreciate the drawings especially the cat. Helps me understand things better. Thank you!
@wombatpuppy4436
4 жыл бұрын
Is this just anti-natalism in reverse? As in Yeah sure it hurts to live but its better than not having existed at all. I dont get what this adds to anything.
@yuutokatou8281
3 жыл бұрын
sick
@ken4975
8 жыл бұрын
We could choose to look at the harm to the planet rather than the person.
@galaddamodred1110
8 жыл бұрын
And what makes you think that existence is better than non-existence?
@zavtrabudetlu4she
5 жыл бұрын
Non existence is not worse than life. So, there's that.
@np0804
9 жыл бұрын
I seem to remember seeing this video about six months ago or was it another very similar one on the same topic?
@atmark666
4 жыл бұрын
identity Philosophy without intellect.
@sara-yk1sq
3 жыл бұрын
This is tragedy not a paradox lol
@alaiakeith7420
4 жыл бұрын
How do you know the beings born into existence didn't exist prior to birth? Perhaps you may counter that and ask what's the difference if they don't remember anyways. But how then do you explain children that are capable of relating experiences of reincarnation, or a former life? If a child exists that can relate a story about a past life, with names of people from the old family that the existence of can be confirmed, then would that story be a confirmation for the premise that a being may have existed before birth? If you allow for the idea that a being may have existed before physical conception and birth, then is the non-identity problem critically flawed? I just don't understand how can you know that the beginning of birth is always the beginning of a being's existence? What methods are being used to measure "This is where this being began being"? Probably an important consideration for this topic as a significant and influential portion of the population on the planet may believe in reincarnation.
@brunopinheiro73
3 жыл бұрын
Not only is reincarnation a matter of faith and personal belief (you cant prove reincarnation just as you cant prove the existance of God) but also you can think of the two possible people as of different sexes. Think about IVF: a woman can choose to become pregnant of a healthy girl or of a deaf Boy. To claim they are both the same person is, to say the least, an enormous stretch. Besides, another fact that sustains the idea that you only fix the identity of the person (the genetic identity, the mental will come later) is the possibility of twinning after implantation).
@batistalift
8 жыл бұрын
I believe its a wrong assumption of yours, that any worth-living life is generally better than nonexistence. Because in my opinion, life only gets a value when it already exists. The theoretical possibility of life doesn't have any value for anybody.
@brackcarmony6385
8 жыл бұрын
The premise doesn't state that any life is better than existence. But that the children's lives are. And only the children can evaluate if that was true or not.
@alejandrogangotena9033
8 жыл бұрын
the last twist was very interesting i didnt expect it. Awesome vid!
@peroz1000
9 жыл бұрын
This is an old video, isn't?
@griffinsullivant7915
8 жыл бұрын
watch in 1.25 speed :)
@chrissstophr
8 жыл бұрын
But why do we assume that having a "worth living" (even though you are ill or polluted) is better than don't exist at all? How you get to that conclusion?
@lenno15697
4 жыл бұрын
It's literally by the definition of "worth living." A life is defined to be "worth living" if it is better than having not existed. If it's better to have not existed, then the life is not "worth living." Perhaps the question you mean to ask is how do we know a life is worth living. IMO we know that a life is worth living through revealed preferences (and equating death to not existing anymore) - if a person tries to kill themselves, chances are their life is not worth living. If instead a person desires to continue living, then their life is most likely worth living.
Пікірлер: 224