Unbearable suffering exists. Therefore, is it worth to live? [closed]

Question

The human being does not have full control over their life. In extreme cases, life can turn into pure happiness or unbearable suffering. Moreover, humans can end up in a situation, where escape from the current state is impossible (e.g. strong drugs, or full body paralysis).

The issue is that a person that has been tortured past their limits is completely beyond rescue. There are no psychotropic drugs, no therapy nor heaven for such a person. In the opposite case, a happy person still can be tormented to the point where death is a blessing. In other words, happiness is always limited, but suffering can be infinite.

Therefore if there is a 1 in a billion chance that tomorrow I will be tortured, is it worth taking the risk and not killing myself today?

Answer 1

Let's take a cold, hard (quasi-Kantian) look at what you're suggesting. So, if there is a one-in-a-billion chance that one might end up in unbearable suffering, that means that in a world of seven billion people, seven people (give or take) will end up in unbearable suffering. So your question is whether all seven billion people on the planet should kill themselves out of fear that they might end up as one of those seven. Does that seem reasonable?

We can play with these numbers all we like, but unless we invoke an absurdly terrifying world we'd still be asking billions of people who would otherwise lead long, happy, healthy, wonderful lives to kill themselves out of fear they'll end up in the wrong group. And no, I'm not trying to appeal to numerical absurdity here; I'm merely following this down to two deeper questions:

1. Why would we focus on the risk of terrible suffering when we could instead focus on the risk of joy, comfort, and ease? A risk is a risk is a risk...: statistics doesn't care, so why do we?
2. Are we thinking universally or collapsing into selfishness? I mean, some people go into terrible spirals of suffering when they get a hangnail or fail to get a promotion at work; others face starvation, wounds, diseases, etc with composure and grace, experiencing the pain without suffering from it. Which are we?

There's a sense to this question as though we are saying: "It's ok if other people suffer, because someone has to draw the short straw, but I won't take the risk for myself." But why is that? Is there something they have which we lack, like composure and grace? Or is there something we have that they lack, like meaningfulness or a soul? The latter seems sociopathic or narcissistic, while the former seems self-defeatist, assuming that composure and grace are out of our reach. But what is the basis for this distinction?

As Abraham Lincoln once said: "Most people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be." If we stop making up our minds to be miserable, suffering wretches, that's half the battle.

Answer 2

Buddhism directly addresses suffering, considering it intrinsic to being experiencers - but not because it is 'out there' but, in our relationship to things. It is desire, grasping, and either not getting, or getting and still not feeling satisfied, which is suffering.

The film Arrival, puts the case beautifully that it's better to have loved and lost, than not to love. Something truly worth doing gives a reward that is independent of failure, or loss.

We expect the universe to end, leaving no residue or record, so we all face this issue. Forward-directed concerns always hit a wall. But what about the concerns of, now?

You seem to assume some kind of utilitarianism, that can quantify and weigh pains and pleasures, in something like Bentham's hedonic calculus. But a life of pleasure, is not necessarily a happy life. We orient ourselves by, and prioritise, meaning. And there is a curious property of meaning, that it can elude us until some insight, perspective, framing, makes sense of seemingly irreconcilable things, and imbues what previously seemed meaningless with meaning. I'd suggest Godel Incompleteness forces this. The truths that can be said in a system, cannot be limited to an algorithm, that can compute them completely. A meta-system, a step out, is required when we recognise a truth not yet part of our algorithm.

I would not presume to make anyone else's calculation of when life is not worth living, the pain too much. But I'd suggest there is always the possibility as long as things are changing, for a redeeming of events up to the point, of reframing. The impact of psilocybin therapy on end-of-life care gives a fascinating insight, into how that can help not only someone facing a painful death, but also their relatives and friends.

Buddhism takes the middle way, between picturing an unchanging eternal soul, and nothing of us continuing after death. Rebirth isn't seen as a salvation, or somewhere better, but as likely worse - animal or demon or ghost habits dominate most people's lives, & will be what is reborn from their lives. In that perspective, there is no running from suffering, in this life, or the next. Only waking up, and finding that reframing, that change of perspective, can end it.