Related posts, but that do not answer my question:
- Is Not Non-Existence Preferable To Existence
- Is Habitat Destruction Merciful?
- Should I kill myself? a Schopenhauer perspective
Here's my reasoning, and what troubles me in its essence:
- If there is no being, this nothing cannot feel pain about its non-existence. It cannot be jealous of the joys of life, because there is nothing which can experience jealousy.
- If there is a being, lets say a human, this human can feel pain about its existence. At times, it can desire to not exist.
Non-existence, from time to time, can seem more desirable than existence (I'm sure you can imagine a very painful situation which seems hopeless until the relief of death).
This question is not about whether or not to kill oneself, or suicide. This question is more about whether or not to bring new life into the world. I would rather not be directly responsible for bringing a child into existence which may likely wish to die at some point in her/his life.
In my perspective, at existence's best, non-existence and existence are on par, existence cannot be preferable to non-existence. However non-existence can be preferable to existence.
Yes life can be wonderful, but it can also be tragic. The wonders of life don't make life better than non-existence, but the tragedies of life make non-existence, the extinguishing of pain, appeal more than life.
My open ended question(s) for all of you:
Is this logic flawed? Is there a poor assumption somewhere that I'm missing?