TheFiend
Poster
Efilism, is a philosophical position that argues against the continuation of life due to the inherent suffering it entails, rests on several key premises.
The core of Efilism lies in the asymmetry of suffering and pleasure.
Life, by its nature, guarantees suffering, pain, disease, loss, and death are inevitable for all sentient beings.
Pleasure, while possible, is neither guaranteed nor sufficient to outweigh suffering in a consistent or universal way.
This asymmetry suggests that non-existence (the absence of life) is preferable, as it eliminates suffering entirely without sacrificing any intrinsic good, since pleasure cannot be missed by something that never exists.
Consider the ethical weight of consent.
Living beings are thrust into existence without their agreement, forced to endure hardships they did not choose.
If we accept that imposing harm without consent is wrong, then creating life, knowing it will suffer, becomes a moral violation.
Non-existence, by contrast, imposes no such burden and violates no one’s autonomy, as there is no entity to harm.
Empirically, the scale of suffering in the world reinforces this.
Billions of humans and trillions of animals experience pain, fear, and deprivation daily, often outweighing fleeting moments of joy.
Nature itself is indifferent, with predation, starvation, and disease as constants.
Even in optimistic scenarios, technological or social progress cannot eliminate suffering entirely; it merely shifts or delays it.
Efilism argues that the only way to "solve" suffering is to prevent it at it's root: by ceasing to perpetuate life.
The counterargument, that life’s positive experiences justify its continuation, falters under scrutiny.
Happiness is subjective and often illusory, a temporary reprieve rather than a stable counterbalance to pain.
Moreover, the value we assign to life may be a bias of existing, not an objective good.
A non-existent being has no need for joy, but a living one cannot escape suffering.
Thus, the rational choice, Efilism posits, is to favor non-existence.
Life inherently produces more suffering than it can justify, and preventing life is the only certain way to eliminate that suffering without creating new harms.
It’s a cold, utilitarian calculus, minimize pain, maximize peace, even if that peace is the silence of nothingness.
The core of Efilism lies in the asymmetry of suffering and pleasure.
Life, by its nature, guarantees suffering, pain, disease, loss, and death are inevitable for all sentient beings.
Pleasure, while possible, is neither guaranteed nor sufficient to outweigh suffering in a consistent or universal way.
This asymmetry suggests that non-existence (the absence of life) is preferable, as it eliminates suffering entirely without sacrificing any intrinsic good, since pleasure cannot be missed by something that never exists.
Consider the ethical weight of consent.
Living beings are thrust into existence without their agreement, forced to endure hardships they did not choose.
If we accept that imposing harm without consent is wrong, then creating life, knowing it will suffer, becomes a moral violation.
Non-existence, by contrast, imposes no such burden and violates no one’s autonomy, as there is no entity to harm.
Empirically, the scale of suffering in the world reinforces this.
Billions of humans and trillions of animals experience pain, fear, and deprivation daily, often outweighing fleeting moments of joy.
Nature itself is indifferent, with predation, starvation, and disease as constants.
Even in optimistic scenarios, technological or social progress cannot eliminate suffering entirely; it merely shifts or delays it.
Efilism argues that the only way to "solve" suffering is to prevent it at it's root: by ceasing to perpetuate life.
The counterargument, that life’s positive experiences justify its continuation, falters under scrutiny.
Happiness is subjective and often illusory, a temporary reprieve rather than a stable counterbalance to pain.
Moreover, the value we assign to life may be a bias of existing, not an objective good.
A non-existent being has no need for joy, but a living one cannot escape suffering.
Thus, the rational choice, Efilism posits, is to favor non-existence.
Life inherently produces more suffering than it can justify, and preventing life is the only certain way to eliminate that suffering without creating new harms.
It’s a cold, utilitarian calculus, minimize pain, maximize peace, even if that peace is the silence of nothingness.
or good I suppose, since the layers upon layers of scars eventually get so thick it's like armor or someshit. Dunno really. Butt fuck I wouldn't ever wish such experiences on any child, and yet there's probably millions suffering far worse this very moment.
