For instance: The starving children in famine-plagued areas, or those born into the lowest classes in India, etc.? Better to have never lived? Better to try to make the best of a hopeless life?
2007-09-09 13:56:27 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Guru-
I did not say "no hope of success", I said a "hopeless life." I am referring to people who, after suffering for their pitifully short lives, will inevitably die (as in those who starve before they are old enough to talk).
2007-09-09 14:11:29 · update #1
Experiences, good or bad, are priceless. Each person on earth has had an effect on those around them. It does not matter the time they were here. So, for me, the answer is better to have lived. Because the time, good or bad happy or sad, has some value.
2007-09-09 14:02:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps that "hopeless" life offers more than the fat self-centredness of those who only live for things. Each life is a learning and an adventure, each immeasurably precious in the eyes of the Almighty. Every one of those starving children has a face, a life, a hope you can know nothing of, but could find the opportunity for love and redemption in if you only stopped long enough to care. Better you should make the best of your hopeless life than decide whether it was better they never lived. Who knows, you may be reborn in one of those bodies, even countless times. Such is the understanding of the faith and world in which they live.
2007-09-09 21:20:32 · answer #2 · answered by Fr. Al 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
From a pragmatic view point of one who is not suffering it is probably better to have never lived at all than to live a life in abject suffering. However, even those suffering starvation and those of the lower classes in India try to stay alive when threatened. Instinct or conscious decision? Probably both but I suspect they have decided that living - even as they do - is better than not living.
2007-09-09 23:07:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Tough question.
You can't really say it's "better they never are born" or you put yourself in a position to play God. You would have to go to such places and prevent births to people who will apparently produce offspring meeting your condition.
Maybe by being born and living in those conditions, their picture ends up on the advertisements for world relief and makes a difference in hundreds or thousands of lives by appealing to contributors. Individually anyone may have an impact on the world.
People die from starvation, automobile crashes, war, drugs and thousands of other things every day. Is it better that they never live? Should we act to end all suffering by mankind? If you say yes, the quickest answer would be to end mankind's existence. Has good come from the suffering of mankind over the years? I think so for through our passion to end suffering many advances have sprung forth.
I guess I would say it is not my call to say if it is better they never lived at all. I will say that I'm touched by such suffering and would like to see an end to easily fixable problems like hunger, but I won't put myself in a position to play God.
g-day!
2007-09-09 21:28:57 · answer #4 · answered by Kekionga 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No hope of what?
It often surprises people to learn that not everyone has the same desires. Desire of people of the East and West are different.
The Buddhist, for example, has no desires for wealth and success. So what is hopeless in the West is not necessarily hopelessness in the East.
2007-09-09 21:06:10 · answer #5 · answered by guru 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋