Is universal harmony worth the tears of one tortured child?
In this post I'd like to quote a large piece from Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" (1879). I've tried to cut the quotes as much as possible, trust me, but they're brilliant.
These are from a dialogue taking place between two brothers, one of whom (Alyosha) is a novice at the monastery, and the other (Ivan) is sort of a rationalist, who is torn between faith and atheism. Anyway, in these selected passages from the chapter entitled 'Rebellion', Ivan talks about the suffering he had seen in the world and his inability to reconcile with it. He chooses to talk of suffering children.
This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'! I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones!
Then Ivan shares another horrifying story:
There was in those days a general of aristocratic connections, the owner of great estates, one of those men- somewhat exceptional, I believe, even then- who, retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that they've earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects. There were such men then. So our general, settled on his property of two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and domineers over his poor neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He has kennels of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys- all mounted, and in uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's favourite hound. 'Why is my favourite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt thedog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the child up and down. 'Take him.' He was taken- taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry.... 'Make him run,' commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs.... 'At him!' yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother's eyes!...
And then the very important questions are being raised about the price of a supposed future harmony, or 'Heaven'.
Listen! I took the case of children only to make my case clearer. Of the other tears of humanity with which the earth is soaked from its crust to its centre, I will say nothing. I have narrowed my subject on purpose. I am a bug, and I recognise in all humility that I cannot understand why the world is arranged as it is. Men are themselves to blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven,though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them. With my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian understanding, all I know is that there is suffering and that there are none guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly; that everything flows and finds its level- but that's only Euclidian nonsense, I know that, and I can't consent to live by it! What comfort is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect simply and directly, and that I know it?- I must have justice, or I will destroy myself. And not justice in some remote infinite time and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself. I have believed in it. I want to see it, and if I am dead by then, let me rise again, for if it all happens without me, it will be too unfair. Surely I haven't suffered simply that I, my crimes and my sufferings, may manure the soil of the future harmony for somebody else. I want to see with my own eyes the hind lie down with the lion and the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been for. All the religions of the world are built on this longing, and I am a believer. But then there are the children, and what am I to do about them? That's a question I can't answer. For the hundredth time I repeat, there are numbers of questions, but I've only taken the children, because in their case what I mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me,please? It's beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future? I understand solidarity in sin among men. I understand solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such solidarity with children. And if it is really true that they must share responsibility for all their fathers' crimes, such a truth is not of this world and is beyond my comprehension. Some jester will say, perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but you see he didn't grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight years old. Oh,Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe it will be when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that lives and has lived criesaloud: 'Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed.' When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can't accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child's torturer, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' but I don't want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don't want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother's heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it."
I'd like to first and foremost view the proposed quotes in the context of antinatalism, although they are initially presented within the religion/atheism framework.
But once we as atheists have rejected the belief in God, once we have bashed the scriptures full of cruelty and nonsense, once we have acknowledged the problem of evil and said 'if God actually exists he must be an evil god who either couldn't care less or is getting a kick out of human suffering', once we have said 'there is no evidence for any gods' and recognized there are just crude forces of nature and us - sentient beings on this Earth, - once we have done all that, isn't it only natural to then ask ourselves the question 'Why are we willingly choosing to bring our children to this world we have been complaining so much about'?
We blame God for letting kids suffer as part of his plan but see nothing wrong in enabling their torments as part of ours.
'So what if some people suffer horribly as a result of being born, the majority is doing all right and besides, we're heading towards a better future where all suffering will be mitigated' - this is what I keep hearing from the proponents of natalism.
Isn't it basically the same 'higher harmony' that has to be payed with the tears of a tortured child?
All those people who defend procreation on the grounds that 'there is more happiness than suffering in this world' or the way they often put it: 'so just because there are a few unlucky ones we should stop the reproduction alltogether?!' - all those guys should ask themselves this:
Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
"No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly."
And can you admit the idea that men for whom you are building it would agree to accept their happiness on the foundation of the unexpiated blood of a little victim? And accepting it would remain happy for ever?"
"No, I can't admit it."
These people should realize they would have answered 'Yes', and they are. Because we are constantly answering this question when we choose to either produce our offsprings or not. We are aware that of some of them will become those tortured kids, who will involuntary pay the price for our desire to propagate our species into the future. And we say 'Yes, we agree to enjoy the happiness founded on the tears and blood of a little victim. No problem there'.
If you wouldn't have created a world where some people pay with their tears and blood for the happiness of others, if you really and truly would never have created such a world, why are you arguing in favor of it's continuation now?
More posts from this category: Abortion: pro-life vs. pro-choiceOpen Letter to Teenager stating nobody owes them that much goes viral
 Irina |
31-07-2012
To be honest, I've only red 'On the suffering of the world' by Schopenhauer. I'm not so much interested in any particular author as in the subjects, so I'm reading a bit here and a bit there. |
 Brian
|
01-08-2012
That's my favorite. You should also check out "The Vanity of Existence"
|
 |
02-08-2012
I deeply agree with you. There is no reason to risk the suffering of even one child for the uncertain promised land of universal happiness and bliss. I\'d rather renounce to my happiness than condemn a poor soul to misery! And yet, let me play advocatus diaboli....a valid reason to keep reproducing and trying to achieve human happiness is to give those who have suffered so far a justification for their suffering. Only if we achieved a future of absolute and perfect happiness, however you define it, could we look all these tortured souls in the eye and tell them that their suffering was worth it. If we give up prematurely, by stopping reproduction altogether for example, all losses in the history of humanity, wars and famines, etc, would have been in vain. So in a way, reproduction is a sunk-cost paradox. We have already invested so much in achieving the unachievable goal of universal bliss that we are now forced to keep trying. Sure, we can give up at any moment and put an end to this futile and painful enterprise. But then we should have done it a long long time ago.
|
|
Irina |
02-08-2012
valid reason to keep reproducing and trying to achieve human happiness is to give those who have suffered so far a justification for their suffering. Who are those exactly? The dead? Or the living? Because I don't think you can do smth for the dead any more, they died without seeing the justice. So will countless more in the future. Only if we achieved a future of absolute and perfect happiness, however you define it, could we look all these tortured souls in the eye and tell them that their suffering was worth it. If. No guarantees. So we keep raping more victims in a hope of some future where no one would be raped any more. If we give up prematurely, by stopping reproduction altogether for example, all losses in the history of humanity, wars and famines, etc, would have been in vain. But if we don't stop reproducing, then what? But then we should have done it a long long time ago. Yes, we should have. But we were too stupid then. This world isn't perfect, there aren't any perfect solutions available in it, unfortunately. We can't change the past but we can prevent future suffering, isn't prevention worth anything? To not create people who will see the 3rd world war or a nuclear disaster? |
|
|
02-08-2012
I guess you're right. You cannot talk to dead people. But since the issue is procreation you still could try to sell your progeny the idea that however miserable their lives are, they serve the greater purpose of a brighter future yet to be reached; utopia. And yes, you are allowed to laugh....I know it sound a lot like delirious political ideology. And yet that is the only reason I can come up with that would justify to keep throwing children in this merciless mill called existence.
The utilitarian argument of no tolerance to pain and misery is difficult to contradict. I guess that in utilitarian terms the only logical alternative is to appeal to a magnificent greater good that would purge all past wrong doings. Unlikely, yes, absolutely. But at least conceivable as counterargument to your thesis. Btw: I found your blog by accident a couple of days ago looking for books on antinatalism. I just bumped into your youtube manifesto against children. I really liked it. I truly appreciate the courage of people who show their faces and take a stand for what they think. Respect! |
|
Irina |
03-08-2012
Thanks for the 'Respect!' and Im always curious how people find this blog. however miserable their lives are, they serve the greater purpose of a brighter future yet to be reached; utopia Doesn't sound like a much solice to me: to be used a manure for somebodys future harvest. And if a person grows out to be quite intelligent they may coclude the probability of utopia in this world is really low. For me - impossible. A perfect world for me would necessary include one where animals wouldn't be eating each other, and thats obviously impossible to change, this will always be. The only thing we could achieve is to develop pills that'd desensitize humans to all animal suffering. I don't think such world would be a great idea. So if somebody told me they had me because they want me to serve their dream of utopia I'd ask them why do I have to be involved to fulfil their dream. I may not share their fascination with building a perfect world, I may just think it's pointless and stupid and I'm entitled to my opinion. All the purposes, dreams, desires and meanings that we the living have are ours, not those of the non-existent. Having a child to impose a harmony building role on them is just as bad as having them in order to make them work on your farm. |
 Zenner
|
10-08-2012
Hi there! In case you're interested, I also found your blog when looking for antinatalists (authors, historical figures... or whatever).
Couldn't agree more with your way of thinking. I find your writing very enjoyable too... constantly 'walking the line' between opposites... and such wonderful dark humour! Thank you for the fun. Got yourself a regular reader, I guess. |
|
Irina |
10-08-2012
Hi Zenner! Thank you for such a substantial and positive feedback! Regular readers are most flattering) |
 |
10-08-2012
It makes no difference if it's (today) Darfur or Syria on one hand or Belgravia or Beverly Hills on the other.
The real key here is that there is a chance that some people, even in the world's wealthiest, most politically stable areas will suffer (actor Owen Wilson attempted suicide, after all - and he has MUCH more money than all this blog posters and you put together). It doesn't even have to be for reasons of their own suffering and hurt. They could see that this is a realm where such things - the VERY bad - COULD happen. Also, each person has their own standards for determining if this world is worth coming into. Only they themselves have the right to determine if their own existence is worth experiencing. Even if they themselves are rather happy with their own lives, they could still see the "Rules of 'The Game of Life'" (so to speak) as being too brutal, arbitrary, and unjust to justify bringing another person into this world. So all of this makes birthing someone akin to forcing a person to sign a legally binding contract before they even glance at the terms. They may well agree with the terms anyway,but then again they may not. In short, it's gambling with the well-being of the potential person to "actualize" them into existence. |
|
Irina |
10-08-2012
I agree, filrabat. [Though I am not sure why you're raising this point here, I get the feeling you're responding to someone else] Every person alive is at risk of grave suffering. Even in world's wealthiest cities people can get infected with flesh eating bacteria, get raped, tortured and murdered by some maniac, develop cancer and keep fighting it for years... I also hear opinions like 'yeah, maybe people in poor countries shouldn't, but us living in the best place on Earth...' Bullshit. No place on Earth guarantees 100% satisfaction. We all know that. The point these people are making is that if that's a small risk, its all right to assign it to a future person. No it's not. Got no right to assign any risk to anyone but yourself. Only in the case of preventing a bigger tragedy are you justified in risking somebody else's welfare. Procreation isn't one of those cases. |
 |
23-08-2012
Wow, that second quote you posted is just so appropriate to an entry I've written in the queue about human sacrifice that I have to use it. I will link to you, of course..
(by human sacrifice I think you will understand what I mean) |
|
|
23-08-2012
That is to say, I meant the third quote...
|
|
Irina |
23-08-2012
Yeah, the 'would you create a world' one. It is great. Curious where you're going to incorporate it. There is an argument being made constantly that 'well, not everyone is miserable, it's a small percentage that is'. I just don't see how even a small percentage of harm is acceptable, indeed, even if it was just 1 innocent human being that would be sacrificed for the mythical everlasting happiness of humanity. |
|
|
23-08-2012
I have an entry in my queue called "On the delicate issue of human sacrifice." It's about people who refuse to answer the quantification question (i.e. how many people should die so your ideas can come to fruition).
|
Perhaps you will find time to make a post on Schopenhauer, our favorite philosopher?