Those who died young are objectively better (from a pro-choicer’s perspective)

[TAW122]

Disclaimer: This is NOT a pro-mortalist thread nor do I encourage or endorse people to die young, but merely exploring and explaining, from an objective perspective of those who have died young (especially those who chose to do so by their own hand), have managed to avoid potential immense suffering and all the problems that follow or will eventually come to pass as one continues sentience, or life.

I wished I had more characters to have a longer title, but this thread is more focused from an objective as well as pro-choice perspective on why dying young is still considered better. Anyways, in this thread, I will seek to explain in detail about why those people who died young are objectively (from the universe's perspective and from a logical perspective) as to why they are objectively better in general. Again, this is focusing on those who have died and why they are (from an objective standpoint and only focusing on them) in a better place, not suffering.

Consider an average, relatively healthy human being (US metric)
First off, with all humans, assuming the average person, be it male or female, and not to complicate things (so just keeping variables more/less the same, without too much deviation from the norm), the life expectancy is about 80 years in the US (chose 80 for an easy number and for hypothetical example purposes). So suppose one dies around age 30, and while to the survivors and people around said person (be it family, friends, and others) they feel sadness and view it as bad because they are sentient and looking in from the outsider's perspective, but for the individual person (the 30 year old), it is objectively better from a logical standpoint and from the universe's perspective. This is because then this 30 year old while he/she may miss out on many life's milestones and events, will also avoid many potential horrors in the next 50 (or more) potential years, as each day, month, year is always a gamble. Said person could get a health problem in their 40's or 50's, could end up in an accident, a victim of a crime, or other bad events in life could happen. But presuming that they lived up to 30, then passed away whether it be CTB or other cause, it is objectively better for them because they missed all the suffering that comes with life along without having to gamble for fleeting joy and pleasures.

On the contrary someone who lived to life expectancy or longer even
It is an indisputable fact that all living things, humans included will all expire, pass, succumb to death at some point in time, some sooner than others, some later than others. Again, with the same example, an average person who didn't die young, but lived until their life expectancy, perhaps even longer (at or over 80 years of age). Sure, each passing day, month, year for that person is another opportunity for potential fleeting joy and pleasure, but that is also a gamble in which the sentient must take where the non-sentient (non-existent or ones who are dead) do not have to experience. Assuming nothing extraordinary or unusual happens, even with a long duration of sentience, at 80 years or so, it is likely that even relatively healthy individuals may still run into health issues (cancer, stroke, heart disease, and many more). Most of which even with good conditions and ideal circumstances (ideal for the average person), they will still have to face the mundanity of day to day life as well as the suffering that comes during their twilight years. This is something that the non-sentient beings don't have to face. Sure, while it may be argued that this individual would have at least 50 (possibly more) years of sentience and opportunity to enjoy the pleasures and joys in life, it could also be argued that there are 50 years of gambling and unnecessary risk that comes with life itself that could easily go awry (disease, infirmity, victim of violence, and/or other forms of suffering) and then the individual's quality of life would plummet. Furthermore, the enjoyment of pleasures and joy may be fleeting and from a universal cost benefit analysis the amount of mundanity as well as potential for immense and unbounded suffering is not worth the temporary reprieve of fleeting pleasures and joy.

In conclusion, given the fact of life expectancies, uncertainty of sentience and life, the gamble of potential greater suffering in relation to fleeting moments of pleasure and joy, dying young is still objectively better at least from a universe's perspective. Of course, I don't encourage nor endorse that people should die young, but merely stating those who have died young are objectively better in the grand scheme of things. While I did mention that the survivors and outside observers (friends, family, peers, acquaintances, etc.) would be grieving, that is another thread altogether as this thread is solely focused on the perspective of the individual from the universe's perspective.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I agree so much. This is why I always say that an earlier death is a better death for me. I honestly think that this logic applies to everybody even if they enjoy their life but unless if I were to get a magical red button that were to exterminate all sentient life peacefully, I can't be bothered as to whether other people want to continue living and continue taking the risk of future suffering. All I know is that I don't want to take that risk so I shouldn't have to. I want to be risk averse. If I died at 10, it'd be better than if I died at 20 which is better than if I died at 30 and so on.

Additionally, one thing that you didn't mention that makes an earlier death better is the fact that there is no harm if a person who is constantly enjoying life were to randomly die right now. I see many pro lifers and, unfortunately to say, even many people on here say that death would be a bad thing for that person but that can't be the case since a positive welfare state doesn't matter to that person anymore since they are dead and have no feelings. The cost opportunity and the deprivationist account thus aren't applicable when it comes to death. Another thing I mistakenly see people say is that death is neutral. It isn't neutral, it simply isn't even on the spectrum at all. If something is neutral, that means that something good exceeds something neutral (like how 2 > 0) but, once again, this doesn't apply to death since a dead person no longer has any desires or feelings so then losing out on future good experiences isn't bad.

Unfortunately not many people are able to acknowledge this as they are hard wired to believe that death is bad no matter what and then work backwards from there

 

[Rust]

While I can't fault your logic, I do want to make a comment just to place an air of caution for anyone who is young and reading this. If the goal is to minimize suffering, then yes, dying early eliminates the problem. However, we might as well eliminate all life then to achieve optimal results. However, this takes things to an extreme. It's segregated from reality which means it should only be used as a thought experiment and not as a valid reason for someone to CTB.

I know you've prefaced your post multiple times by saying that you do not endorse people to die young and that this is from the universe's perspective. I appreciate that. My concern is that young people reading this will ignore what you've said and latch onto the logic. My greater concern is that this logic becomes a pinnacle point for some other thought processes down the line.

Maybe my post is pointless, but it makes me feel better to mention this.

 

[SilentSadness]

I agree, but I don't understand how that's not a pro mortalist perspective. That is a very strong argument in favour of pro mortalism, that life will always get worse and death is the only way to avoid future suffering. Life is always a gamble and when you play with fire you get burned.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I agree, but I don't understand how that's not a pro mortalist perspective. That is a very strong argument in favour of pro mortalism, that life will always get worse and death is the only way to avoid future suffering. Life is always a gamble and when you play with fire you get burned.

I agree. I was also going to comment this at the end but I didn't as I forgot to. Pro mortalism is literally the belief that an earlier death is better than a later death or that an earlier extinction is better than a later one.

However, we might as well eliminate all life then to achieve optimal results.

This will be nothing more than a thought experiment as nobody irl possesses the power to eliminate all life and every pro mortalist knows that. This is why pro mortalism is just a philosophy and nothing else

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think it's just too broader strokes to say this will be the pattern for everyone. My best years to date were ages 30-40 and that's despite having the worst health problems I've had so far in that time- gallstones leading to a stone in the bile duct. I think it's very reliant on circumstances.You can't say for sure someone won't meet the love of their life in their late 40's for example. They may not develop serious health problems until their 70's. They could have an absolutely terrible childhood but then, turn things around. It's impossible to know for sure.

Where I would agree though is- someone who's lost all hope at whatever age is surely going to find life a lot harder. They need to struggle just to find the motivation to do stuff, let alone actually do it! They may not even bother because it's so exhausting and just tread water as best they can for years, decades even and then find on top of everything else that they feel regret for having missed their chances in life.

So personally, I'd say it's more to do with attitude. How much hope a person has left. How much drive. I've had ideation since I was 10. Still, my ideation back when I was 10, 18, 24, even up to my early 40's was slightly different to how I feel now. I did at least have more drive back then to be creative. Now- I'd miss it like hell if I had to quit it but it isn't giving me the same fulfilment it used to. It's almost like- what do we still have left in our reserve tanks to push us through? Sometimes, it's just enough to still get something out of life. If there's nothing left though or- there's nothing there to begin with. There are a number of younger members who feel like there's absolutely nothing they want out of life so- why would they put anything in to it? I think those are the hardest cases if I'm honest. It's like there's no hope to be had. I suppose I've always felt like the probability of recovery depends on a sense of hope to initiate things. If someone still has some small amount of hope left- who knows? They may end up getting what they wanted in time. They may well not too. It's really just unknown.

 

[TAW122]

Additionally, one thing that you didn't mention that makes an earlier death better is the fact that there is no harm if a person who is constantly enjoying life were to randomly die right now.

From an objective (non-subjective and in the eyes of the universe, an non-sentient entity) point of view, yes what you stated would be true. The person oneself whose enjoying life to suddenly pass away wouldn't suffer harm (since the moment they die/become non-sentient they couldn't perceive pleasure or suffering, they just wouldn't feel anything), but of course the survivors and people around said person would suffer harm (the loss of that person). So in this thread, my focus is mainly on the individual themselves rather than others around them. Mind you, of course I don't completely ignore nor discount the fact that humanity and human relations are complex, they are indeed, but merely stating a fact of the observable universe from a non-sentient point of view.

@Rust I see your sentiments and points, and yes, in reality this would of course not be possible nor really morally permissible, but from an educational and academic perspective, yes this is indeed an interesting thought to philosophically ponder about. At the end, I do not endorse nor encourage anyone to live (continue sentience) nor die, but merely explaining a philosophical position.

@SilentSadness Hm, I don't think I've seen the pro-mortalism from my argument but I was merely looking at it through the lens of the universe and from a non-sentient point of view. Perhaps my definition of pro-mortalism is different from the established definition?

@Forever Sleep Good points and yes while there are many complex factors, I do think that at the most basic level and just from a philosophical perspective, objectively speaking yes in general people who are gone before the worst are generally better. But I do agree with your points that at any age, some people have enjoyable lives whether it's their 20's, 30's, 40's or even older, and realistically, yes you are correct, there are many factors that go into quality of life and similar. At the end of the day, while this is just my interpretation of a philosophical standpoint, ultimately I still respect the choice between continued sentience (continue to live) or to end one's own sentience on one's own terms.

 

[OnMyLast Legs]

Pro mortalism is literally the belief that an earlier death is better than a later death or that an earlier extinction is better than a later one.

Yeah OP really went ham on the disclaimers

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

I enjoyed my youth excessively, travelled around the world, made al lot of party and spend much time with martial arts, with the effect that I finished univesity at 28. What would I have missed if I were dead at 30? My doctoral thesis, my career which I enjoyed both. Becoming rich, meeting the mother of my three children, raising my children, having fun with my grandchildren (next May it will be 8).

I suppressed my dark side, my masochistic death fetish, but now it should help me to end a good life with a good death. The right time to die is when I will probably miss nothing good but only the nursing home.

 

[WearyWanderer]

I agree that for many or as a general rule, dying young is better than old.

But in my stance only dying from accidents or quick sudden causes is better. I mean possibly also terminal reasons if young since at least the suffering won't last as long.

I don't agree that ctb when young is better bc statistics do show that most people make multiple attempts before passing by ctb if they even manage to pass by ctb in the first place and some young people are more likely to attempt on impulse therefore more room for failure or severe injury.

But yes the fact of the matter is anyone, whether young or old can suffer unimaginably and immensely. The only factor dying young can change is that perhaps the length of that suffering can be shortened.

This is why I support medically safe euthanasia at all ages.

This is also why I wish more than anything I had died young as a child or been one of those people who fell off a cliff and died trying to take a selfie while traveling.

The ones who fell while traveling were at least able bodied and wealthy enough to get there and then got to die with nearly zero pain or suffering other than the fall. Not so stupid after all.

 

[TAW122]

@Gustav Hartmann I'm glad to hear about how things turned around for you and I do agree that in general (of course, each individual's circumstances are different and will vary case by case), when there is nothing but suffering ahead and the suffering outweighs the good times or pleasure, it is a good time to go on one's own terms.

@WearyWanderer True, there are people who are often younger whose situations are temporary (I'm not going to say all nor generalize too much as to not oversimplify or become too presumptuous myself) and in a fair bit of situations can improve or are glad they didn't CTB sooner, especially if they are going to attempt CTB impulsively (and possibly fail as well as suffering immense damage to oneself and suffer even more). I also support having medically controlled (safe) euthanasia, but perhaps only those who are of legal age (age of majority and based on the US, it's 18 as with most countries and jurisdictions), with some exceptions such as terminal illnesses or very severe cases. Of course, even with such a system, program, or policy in place, there would be numerous safeguards and thorough vetting processes to prevent impulsive decisions, coercive decisions, or even those who are uncertain. There should also have a waiting period too (again to prevent impulsive decisions and to ensure that one is certain about it, unwilling to change one's mind).

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Said person could get a health problem in their 40's or 50's, could end up in an accident, a victim of a crime, or other bad events in life could happen.

An accident could happen at any point in your life. This isn't really a concern that's specific to those in their 40s and 50s. Along with that, your health around those ages really comes down to your current lifestyle choices. Unless you happen to have some sort of health condition that will significantly worsen by then, you should probably be fine. Bad life events are also something that can happen to anyone of any age at any given moment.

Tbh, none of this really supports your notion of it being objectively better to due young. As somebody who wants to die young, whether or not you think that dying young is better is inherently subjective. For example, one could argue that reported levels of happiness and self-esteem tend to increase with age, making it worth it to try and die while older in comparison to dying when young. This all really comes down to perspective. This makes me think back to my grandmother. She is from the Caribbean and thus has a very Caribbean way of looking at life. As a result, despite suffering from the early signs of dementia (which has been progressively getting worse as of late), she refuses to get treatment. From my perspective, it's better for her to look into treatment options, but from her perspective, it's better to just let what happens happen and accept it. I don't like it, but I have to accept it. What either of us thinks is the better option is subjective at the end of the day. Her decision probably has plenty of merits that I just don't comprehend due to me having a very different take on the whole situation.

I don't really get the point in trying to argue that your subjective opinion is objective...

 

[LostLily]

I just don't want to be at the age like my grandmother who spend the last years in her life wheelchair bound and needing help to go to the washroom

 

[KuriGohan&Kamehameha]

You know, when a younger person passes, from an accident, illness, etc, you will always hear the most positive interpretation of what the future could've held, "They didn't have a chance to walk down the aisle, or they didn't finish university yet, they didn't have a career, they didn't get a chance to be a parent," are common things you hear. Youth is universally celebrated, while aging typically is not, the conditions many elders endure because their lives are viewed as less valuable is truly appalling.

I think this is why the biggest at risk demographic for suicide is middle aged men. Because once you hit a certain age it feels like the support dwindles, and age becomes a return on investment calculation in certain contexts. I've watched my grandparents endure a great deal of unnecessary suffering because healthcare workers do not prioritize chronic health issues in the elderly and let them suffer with the logic of resources are better spend elsewhere. The other day there was a news article about an elderly woman in the UK who laid out on the cold pavement for nearly an entire day with a broken hip leaving her completely immobile, and the commenters were defending the inaction of the ambulance service by saying things like, "Oh she's so old, she's going to die anyway probably."

A younger person is generally seen as a blank slate and unwritten story in the collective consciousness, with infinite potential to achieve. There's generally not much acknowledgement that opposite could happen as well. By the time someone is elderly, it's expected that they got to live their life to the fullest and experience many things, even if some of them never got the chance to.

For example, there are still many elderly people around the world who never got access to education and endured hard labor from a very young age, a great deal did not get to marry for love and had children not because they wanted to but it's what was expected of them. Did those people get to reach their full potential? Probably not.

The issue lies in that the probability of achieving that potential is not inherently equal. I've seen many stories of people who have a bad life when they are younger only to turn things around once they hit their late 20s and 30s, and cannot relate to it personally. Like Forever Hope said, it is highly dependent on the individual and their circumstances, how well they can bounce back from hardship or create a life that they enjoy.

There's a person I know from here who has been through a lot in life and is able to keep going in this present moment because they have hope and a goal to achieve it, and that goal is what pushes them forward. Feeling as if what you want is possible, is what gives people hope and motivates them to stick around longer. It seems to be easier for younger people, who statistically haven't had a chance to explore as many options yet, to keep finding new avenues they can pursue to improve their situation.

However, and I am only speaking about my own personal situation from a subjective lens, I wish I had died over a decade ago as a young teenager, because things got so much worse for me. Whenever I first started being suicidal at age 12 or so and dabbling in self-harm, I was told platitudes rather than being given any sort of solution for my issues or a path forward, no guidance whatsoever about what would happen when a disabled child like me inevitably grew into a disabled adult. Now, in my mid 20s, with chronic illness preventing me from doing fulfilling things, and no desire to have children, I really wish I had died back then, because I am not going to do any of these things that people say makes life worth living. It would have been a mercy compared to all of the years of needless misery I have suffered since then. It should have been obvious that I was never going to be a functional human being and it would have been better for me to die.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

Yeah OP really went ham on the disclaimers

Yeah but I can't really blame him as unfortunately pro mortalism gets a lot of hate even within the antinatalism and the right to die community (I'm talking about the actual right to die, not those who believe that a dignified death should have maximum restrictions to it). As an example, david benetar who defends antinatalism is against pro mortalism even though I personally think that some of his arguments for antinatalism can be applied to pro mortalism as well. He got death threats for defending antinatalism so I can't imagine how much worse it would have been if he were to defend pro mortalism. So yeah, I understand the disclaimers within this post and why he distanced himself from pro mortalism