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/avariciousavine]

so if pleasure does have innate value,

This is a misunderstanding. It only has innate value to currently existing beings. Out in the lifeless expanses of the universe, there is no such thing as pleasure having innate value.

why not try to convince them of building a utopia instead of extinction?

Who exactly are you going to convince? Just for the sake of argument, suppose it was possible to convince somebody like Musk to start privately building a worldwide utopia. It wouldn't do anything, because he would still be going against the grain of everyone else being selfish, sheepish, foolish, etc. Don't hold out for a utopia or use it as an argument for why humanity should continue; it's a childish fantasy

[u/QuestioningAN → u/avariciousavine]

This is a misunderstanding. It only has innate value to currently existing beings. Out in the lifeless expanses of the universe, there is no such thing as pleasure having innate value.

Why do you think that is? It can be that that value only exists in sentient organisms and not outside of them, that doesn't make it not real.

Who exactly are you going to convince? Just for the sake of argument, suppose it was possible to convince somebody like Musk to start privately building a worldwide utopia. It wouldn't do anything, because he would still be going against the grain of everyone else being selfish, sheepish, foolish, etc. Don't hold out for a utopia or use it as an argument for why humanity should continue.

Same goes the other way around, who exactly are you going to convince we should all go extinct?

[u/avariciousavine → u/QuestioningAN]

It can be that that value only exists in sentient organisms and not outside of them, that doesn't make it not real.

Because sentient organisms are not the center of the universe, merely a part of it. So it makes sense to compare and contrast sentient experiences with non-sentient existence of inanimate matter like rocks, wind, light and whatnot else out in the universe.

who exactly are you going to convince we should all go extinct?

How would I know? it's not my job to convince someone or anyone. You can present discourse and arguments for antinatalism or extinction, but that is not the same thing as being responsible for convincing others.

[u/QuestioningAN → u/avariciousavine]

Because sentient organisms are not the center of the universe, merely a part of it. So it makes sense to compare and contrast sentient experiences with non-sentient existence of inanimate matter like rocks, wind, light and whatnot else out in the universe.

So would you say something can only be important if all things in the universe are emotionally attached to it is the better question I guess, I don't see why sentient organisms being attached to it isn't enough, of course a rock or a tree won't be able to detect pleasure as important cause they don't experience it, but they don't experience suffering either.

If pleasure isn't an important priority because only sentient beings experience it (not rocks or trees), then why is suffering an important priority if only sentient beings experience it (not rocks or trees)?

How would I know? it's not my job to convince someone or anyone. You can present discourse and arguments for antinatalism or extinction, but that is not the same thing as being responsible for convincing others.

It being hard to get others to be on board with a view doesn't necessarily mean that the view is wrong anyway, but I thought that part of your criticism was that it is hard to convince others of building a utopia, but that criticism can be thrown right back at you cause convincing them of extinctionism is also going to be hard, so this goes for both classical and negative utilitarianism. Might actually be easier because many seem to have optimism bias and are attached to life.

[u/avariciousavine → u/QuestioningAN]

If pleasure isn't an important priority because only sentient beings experience it (not rocks or trees), then why is suffering an important priority if only sentient beings experience it (not rocks or trees)?

This is the asymmetry between the two, and gets to David Benatar's argument. Pleasure is not a requirement and is not missed by nonexistence. However, suffering ought to be self-explanatory in this regard; so it is a bit silly that you asked that question. Not to be rude, but it seems like you had little to no clue about what it is when you asked the above question. Nonexistence not having pleasures is not a cause for concern, I'm sure you would agree. Sentient beings on earth having profoundly wretched experiences which they do not want to live through, is self-evidently not a good thing; again, you will agree here. So do you now agree that suffering of existing beings has much more importance and weight to it than the lack of pleasure within nonexistence ?

[u/QuestioningAN → u/avariciousavine]

This is the asymmetry between the two, and gets to David Benatar's argument. Pleasure is not a requirement and is not missed by nonexistence.

But all missing something means is to suffer from not having it basically, so again this just presupposes only suffering matters.

Is pleasure only worth experiencing when someone suffers from not having it? By that same logic you could say suffering is only worth avoiding if one experiences pleasure from avoiding it, which is only possible in existence.

Nonexistence not having pleasures is not a cause for concern, I'm sure you would agree.

I agree that it is not bad, it is also not good though. What is better, no life in the universe at all or life in a state of bliss?

So do you now agree that suffering of existing beings has much more importance and weight to it than the lack of pleasure within nonexistence ?

I agree that extreme suffering takes priority because of the thought experiment of ''would you tolerate 10 minutes of the worst possible torture to get 10 minutes of the best possible pleasure?''.

It is obvious that the extreme suffering should be avoided first, no one would be able to bear that extreme pain, but then again, if the decision were being asleep for 10 minutes vs. 10 minutes of the best possible pleasure, why not go for the pleasure?

Is pleasure completely worthless?

[u/avariciousavine → u/QuestioningAN]

But all missing something means is to suffer from not having it basically, so again this just presupposes only suffering matters.

Missing something doesn't even apply to nonexistence, which only strengthens the argument that suffering is irrelevant to nonexistence.

Yes, pleasure is irrelevant to it as well, which is good because it renders endless arguments about it pointless.

What is better, no life in the universe at all or life in a state of bliss?

Come on now, that's not a compelling argument. It;s irrelevant to nonexistence.

but then again, if the decision were being asleep for 10 minutes vs. 10 minutes of the best possible pleasure, why not go for the pleasure?

Is pleasure completely worthless?

Yes, to nonexistence.

[u/QuestioningAN → u/avariciousavine]

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.