https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mGV9ZoEYUA
So I just finished this debate and I don't think both are particularly right. Jordan essentially argues for the idea that the horrors of existence can be redeemable supposing you have enough courage and strength to beat those horrors and make the world a better place, thus making your existence a net positive to the world, which goes against David's argument that existence is ABSOLUTELY bad.
David seems to struggle with even the premises of his arguments. He can't define "good" and "bad", and when asked to do so he goes on a tandem about a semantic argument where there's a difference between pleasure and desire. Jordan strikes a powerful argument which highlights the ethical repercussions of the anti-natalist idea which goes like this; suppose there was a sleeping man who's friendless, single, depressed and hates his life, would you kill him as it's in his best interests since he's in irredeemable suffering? Ultimately David fails to address this, resorting again to clarifying a non-existing ambiguity about the the difference between existing and not and how he wouldn't do that because despite the man's hopeless situation, he still has an interest in living somehow.
Another bizarre thing I find about David's idea is he somehow thinks there's a sense of value to the state of non-existence, that is, as he says, we have no interest in existing but we're brought forth into this horrible world. But how can you have an interest or anything when you don't exist? Apparently he calls this the "Epicurean argument", which I haven't looked into yet but I think it's silly and just more mental gymnastics.
Finally the position is taken to its extreme, with Jordan arguing it could have ethical and dangerous consequences for the world and he uses some school shooter as an example, David argues that's not the case, and anyone using his position to do positive harm (that is the end of existence or the attempt to do that, which by the way David does not find evil, which is ABSURD!) is a "distortion" of his ideas, somehow. Yeah, telling people life is bad is NOT actually bad, normies! Get it right!
Overall I think David is just an idiot basically, he tried to make a formal system out of an age old dilemma of existence and its horrors only to fail and fumble even the very basics of his argument. However I don't think Jordan is right either, his heroic argument is wish-fulfillment bullcrap, and empirically speaking I think David's argument holds more merit than Jordan's "solution", despite how badly formulated it is.
So I just finished this debate and I don't think both are particularly right. Jordan essentially argues for the idea that the horrors of existence can be redeemable supposing you have enough courage and strength to beat those horrors and make the world a better place, thus making your existence a net positive to the world, which goes against David's argument that existence is ABSOLUTELY bad.
David seems to struggle with even the premises of his arguments. He can't define "good" and "bad", and when asked to do so he goes on a tandem about a semantic argument where there's a difference between pleasure and desire. Jordan strikes a powerful argument which highlights the ethical repercussions of the anti-natalist idea which goes like this; suppose there was a sleeping man who's friendless, single, depressed and hates his life, would you kill him as it's in his best interests since he's in irredeemable suffering? Ultimately David fails to address this, resorting again to clarifying a non-existing ambiguity about the the difference between existing and not and how he wouldn't do that because despite the man's hopeless situation, he still has an interest in living somehow.
Another bizarre thing I find about David's idea is he somehow thinks there's a sense of value to the state of non-existence, that is, as he says, we have no interest in existing but we're brought forth into this horrible world. But how can you have an interest or anything when you don't exist? Apparently he calls this the "Epicurean argument", which I haven't looked into yet but I think it's silly and just more mental gymnastics.
Finally the position is taken to its extreme, with Jordan arguing it could have ethical and dangerous consequences for the world and he uses some school shooter as an example, David argues that's not the case, and anyone using his position to do positive harm (that is the end of existence or the attempt to do that, which by the way David does not find evil, which is ABSURD!) is a "distortion" of his ideas, somehow. Yeah, telling people life is bad is NOT actually bad, normies! Get it right!
Overall I think David is just an idiot basically, he tried to make a formal system out of an age old dilemma of existence and its horrors only to fail and fumble even the very basics of his argument. However I don't think Jordan is right either, his heroic argument is wish-fulfillment bullcrap, and empirically speaking I think David's argument holds more merit than Jordan's "solution", despite how badly formulated it is.
