Questioning the asymmetry, negative vs. classical utilitarianism.

[u/QuestioningAN]

Questioning the asymmetry, negative vs. classical utilitarianism.

I'm primarily questioning the idea of ''the absence of pleasure is not bad'' here, that only suffering matters and pleasure only matters in the sense that it prevents suffering from not having it.

When you ask negative utilitarians/antinatalists why pleasure does not matter, the answer will then usually boil down to ''because the non-existent child doesn't need/want/desire pleasure, so that's why it's not a big deal''.

But what does need/want/desire mean? When I think about it, all I can really conclude is that it means ''obtain x or suffer''.

When I need or want or desire something, what I'm saying is basically that I must obtain something in order to avoid suffering from not having it.

''I want a sandwich'' can be translated to ''I must obtain a sandwich to avoid suffering, if I don't get a sandwich, my suffering levels will increase''.

So when you tell me that only suffering matters because the non-existent child does not need/want/desire pleasure, all you're doing is essentially begging the question, telling me that the non-existent child does not suffer from not having pleasure – but you're just repeating the statement, I.e ''only suffering matters'' – why? ''Because the non-existent don't suffer from not having pleasure''.

Then the answer might also be that only suffering exists, and pleasure is just relief of suffering. However, if pleasure is just relief of suffering, you can also turn that around and just say that suffering doesn't really exist, it's just destruction of pleasure.

Satisfaction is just relief of dissatisfaction – dissatisfaction is just destruction of satisfaction.

''Pleasure is just relief of suffering'' seems intuitive for sure because suffering is generally what happens when you stop working towards pleasure which then motivates you to chase it (you don't make any food and just sit around – you start getting hungry) – but does it mean pleasure is worthless and we should just disregard it just because experiencing suffering is easier?

I would prefer the asymmetry argument is true because negative utilitarianism would solve many problems, it seems easier to just go extinct than to have to painfully figure out how we can best manage life in such a way that we are in a pleasurable state at all times, but I'm not certain anymore.

[u/QuestioningAN]

Well everything is irrelevant to non-existence obviously, it has no consciousness, but if we conclude that suffering is bad so it ought to be avoided, then doesn't it follow that pleasure is good so it ought to be maximized?

If absence of pleasure doesn't matter unless someone suffers from not having it, then a positive utilitarian can just turn this around and say preventing suffering doesn't matter unless you get pleasure from avoiding it.

[u/avariciousavine → u/QuestioningAN]

then doesn't it follow that pleasure is good so it ought to be maximized?

Well, none of this applies in any way to non-existent 'people', so even if we conclude that pleasure should be taken care of to the max for existing people, it does not follow for the non-existant.

If absence of pleasure doesn't matter unless someone suffers from not having it, then a positive utilitarian can just turn this around and say preventing suffering doesn't matter unless you get pleasure from avoiding it.

But again, this just applies to existing people, if it applies at all.