Our lives are full of choices. Which two choices are the most difficult to pick between?
我们的生活充满了选择,哪两种选择难做出取舍?
The fundamental question in philosophy is, what is the purpose of life? It seems that the choice between life and death may be the most difficult for a critical philosopher to make. Three areas that make these two options very difficult to choose between center on cost-benefit analysis of the states of life and death; an ethical obligation in our current world, and natural, biological commands engrained in organisms.
What is better, to be alive or to be dead? Such a question has enormous payoffs on both sides. For a life-affirming position, one could argue that all the pleasures of life, every single one of them, can't be enjoyed without life. Tasting a new batch of grandma's renowned soft cookies, wafting an aromatic smell of Mom's famous dressed turkey, the exhilaration and thankful happiness you enjoy when you grade the final,absolute last SAT essay “”“these all cannot be enjoyed by a dead person. But on the other hand, pain and suffering also won't assail one if one is dead. The physical suffering of enduring a disease, the painful loss of a loved one, the mind-numbing exasperation as you reach for the 574th Standardized Test essay paper to grade ”the benefits of being alive seem to be balanced by the avoidance of troubles after death, making the choice of living or not living very difficult to choose between.
Ethics also make this choice more difficult. While some religions tout that all life is sacred and that one should enjoy life as the morally superior thing to do, arguments for self-sacrifice can be made on the opposing position. Some interpretations of Buddhism and Christianity, for example, place suicide as one of the most egregious sins. However, those religions also advocate compassion and loving your neighbor. In this enormously overpopulated world, where million starve due to the lack of basic necessities such as water and food, can it truly be ethical to keep consuming resources that could go to save many others' lives? Thus, morality and ethics play a role in making the choice between life and death more difficult.
Furthermore, some biologists contend of a will to live-that is, after birth,organisms naturally tend to seek its survival. If such a drive exists, could we truly do much to stop its workings? Perhaps resisting the natural flow will be only difficult and futile. However, an alternate view exists in the theories provided by the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, who espouses the idea of “destrudo,” a death drive, a subconscious desire of each human to seek its own destruction. This at worst bats and neutralizes the certain biologists' claim of a will to life. In this way, two opposing theories on basic biological aims of organisms contend against each other, making the options of life or death that much harder.
The decision between living and dying isn't so clear-cut as most would think philosophers have struggled to deal with it for millennia. In the areas of utilitarian pros and cons, morality struggles, and basic natural drives, the choice between the two options of life or death is a very difficult one to make.