What I am about to write is something I am very passionate about--it’s my career

Read another response by Stephen Maitzen
Read another response about Value
What I am about to write is something I am very passionate about--it’s my career goal, my meaning of life. Basically, I really need to know what logical holes there are in my recurring thought process. I will set it up in an argument form, but I have no idea about the subtleties of premises, soundness, validity, or conclusions, so please overlook that! I am hoping I can get some criticism on this view that I hold. Please, pick this apart for me! I really need to know if I am mistaken before deciding to undertake studying and preparing for such a career. I'd like to get as many opinions from different backgrounds/life experiences as I can! Everyone, please chime in! 1.) The Earth is religiously ambiguous (rationally capable of being interpreted in theist, agnostic, and atheist views). 2.) There are horrible afflictions (such as sex and labor trafficking, solitary confinement, torture, locked-in syndrome, etc) that people go through while on Earth. 3.) If certain afflictions affect someone for a prolonged amount of time, they’ll start to consider suicide (as a result of loathing life so much [solely on account of the affliction]). 4.) Suicide is the greatest evil since our very life might be all we have to enjoy (from 1). 5.) As fellow, capable, empathetic humans (since animal life cannot help and God may not be real [from 1]), we have a moral obligation to assist the afflicted to a place more conducive to freedom. 6.) Value, purpose, and meaning to life come mainly from assisting the afflicted. 7.) The more people a person assists in this way, the more meaning and worth her life will have. 8.) Our careers take up most of our lifetime, thus I should have a career where I assist the afflicted to a place more conducive to freedom (in order to have a life worthy of existence and being blessed in the way I have).

I hope others will chime in, but for starters I'd question step (4) of the argument.

First, from our failure know whether earthly life is the only life we get, it doesn't follow that earthly life is the only life we get. That inference would commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

Second, even if earthly life is the only life we get, it doesn't follow that nothing is worse than death. Indeed, some of the kinds of suffering you listed (such as torture or locked-in syndrome) might be worse than death in some cases.

Third, even if death were the worst evil of all, your argument would support death-prevention of any sort, not just suicide-prevention.

Related Terms