Oh sure. I’m happy too. But as I tried to explain, I don’t think happiness is the issue. Cruelty can befall a happy man.
I think it is the refusal we have to euthanase those who are suffering long horrible deaths.
I’ve thought about this one a lot, and I’m pretty sure I have the final answer
The Cruelest, the Worst thing a human being can do is to turn their back on love. There is no worse sin in this life.
In my personal experience, the thing that has hurt me the worst was when I truly loved another, and that person threw me away. Nothing else they could have done would have hurt me more.
The worst things I have done to other people were a refutation of their love for me. You cannot do terrible things to another person without first denying them your love. And, if you really love them, you become incapable of cruelty.
To deny love is to deny the very being of a person.
All else really follows from that.
Then I would say it’s the worst thing for the family, not for the child. The familiy is suffering, not the child. The child no longer exists. The child cannot feel no more, the pain resides with those that live on. That’s the cruel part.
No, you just aren’t there. Peace and tranquility are experiences; absence is not. It is not true that “you don’t have a body”; there is no you.
True, but not being born is also the one way to ensure that a child never experiences joy or love.
If one wants to define “cruelty” as “suffering, irrespective of any concomitant blessings,” I suppose I could agree with the OP; but it seems awfully odd to only look at one side of the ledger.
Not to sound like a broken record or anything, but you don’t have people turning their back on love without people existing in the first place. What could be worse than bringing a being capable of such cruelty into existence?
All human cruelty follows from bringing more humans into the world.
What, as far as you are concerned, is the other side of the ledger? Is it not just as “odd.”
But “turning your back on love,” or any of the other horrible things humans can do, is not a necessary result of having a kid. It’s possible (if unlikely) to have a kid who will never cause, or suffer, any great tragedy in their lives. It is even more possible (some might even say likely) to have a kid who will, on balance, experience more joy and happiness than misery and suffering over the course of their lives. Which makes having a kid a net positive, under those circumstances. Personally, I think “the greatest human cruelty” should be something that always, without exception, results in more suffering than it eases. Your mileage will most likely vary.
Over and above that, however, I reject the idea that someone misusing or abusing a gift makes the gift itself “cruel.” If I give $20 to a homeless guy, and he uses it to OD on heroin, have I been cruel for giving him $20? If I give a brand new car to someone, and they die in a horrible car accident, do I bear responsibility for giving them the car? Does that make my gift an evil or immoral act? Having a kid is not, in and of itself, an act of cruelty. Accidents and misadventures that follow afterwards are not the fault of the initial conception. Having a kid is, at worst, a morally neutral act. It’s what you do to that kid afterward that has a moral dimension.
I’m starting to think you sound like someone who got his girlfriend pregnant and wants to talk her into having an abortion, yet feels some need for our moral support.
Fine; life sucks, all children should be put out their misery and the whole human race was a grotesque mistake. Satisfied?
It’s true that all human cruelty comes from humans. Similarly it’s true that all painful impailments from paint brushes come from paint brushes.
This does not make creating paintbrushes cruel, or suggest that one favors impailment by paint brush if one simply creates a paintbrush.
All sorts of things have potentials. Creating a potential is neither good nor ill. Actualizing that potential is. Turning your back on love is actualizing that potential for human cruelty.
The person who brought the personinto existance who turned their back on love is not necessarily guilty. The person who actually does the thing is.
But you cannot measure a thing simply for its potential. It’s how that potential is used.
Hey, I appreciate the compliment, but what I would like is to talk all the girlfriends of the world out of having babies at all. Having babies is a mean thing to do.
I’m only satisfied if you really mean what you say.
And if you do, let’s let the human race end. Enough is enough.
An additional tack: withholding love, to continue with Scylla’s example, is terrible, but only because love itself is so wonderful. If bringing a child into the world is so horrible because it might reject love or suffer from its rejection, is it not just as horrible to never bring a child into this world that it might experience love? If the act of procreation is to be condemned for all the bad things that might happen to that person in the course of his or her life, then logically, not bringing a child into the world should be condemned for preventing that person from experiencing all that’s joyful and wonderful about life.
And considering the most people spend the bulk of their lives not actively engaged in creating new human life, that’s a heck of a lot of condemnaton to go around, as compared to the much smaller portion spent gettin’ it on.
To be completely accurate, can we rephrase this statement?
“All human potential follows by bringing more humans into the world.”
That potential can be for good or evil, benevolence or cruelty. Peaks must have valleys. A flatline is no existence at all.
This is well put, Scylla.
Which grumpy grogs got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning? *Tickle tickle … * who was it?
I saw a smiiiile …
It is odd, I agree. And that’s what I said early on. Again, the OP does capture an interesting metaphysic, but the intersection of two metaphysical possibilities might easily be the empty set.
I disagree.
When somebody kicks you in the nuts you experience a deep connection to that other person.
Sometimes you feel a deep connection to the floor.
Your testicles might feel a deep connection to the bottom of your stomach.
I don’t know why I’m bothering to post here - maybe it’s whatever’s in this cold medicine - but yes, it’s true, there can be no human cruelty without humans. So to that end, I guess having offspring is the cruelest action a human can take since it prolongs the potential, as someone above said.
But I would posit that without humans, there would still be suffering among the animals of this planet. Elephants would still mourn their dead, dolphins would still carry their dead children with them for days after death, and so on. So I guess we have to end life entirely.
Look, if you’re feeling suicidal, there’s really not a whole lot I can do for you from where I sit. But don’t drag anyone else down with you. Some of us like it here.
As pointed out some of us like it here. In fact some of us want to spread the joi da vive. If that means replicating ourselves, so much the better. I refuse to believe life is all gloom and doom.
Yeah eventually you die, somethimes it ain’t pretty, but sometimes it’s in your sleep and you don’t feel a thing. Does that really negate all possible positive things?
So chum what is it that has you all dark and mopey? Part of some teenage goth angst? Lose someone close to you? Lonely and depressed and figure that everyone must be sharing that pain? Did you watch too much news and think that all of life must be painful?
What is it in you that has got you so bent against life?
Why don’t you try to give me a positive thing about life (and no smart aleky “It ends” or other such nonsense. It can’t all be so bleak or you wouldn’t be here posting. So what is it that keeps you on this plain?