Suicide, Murder, The Right to Self-Harm

David Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument is one of the pillars of antinatalism and right to die. It’s an important philosophical concept. The fact that it’s not so well-known speaks volume about current times, and not good things.

It’s not a concept that’s hard to grasp. The main idea is, a person who exists experiences both pain, pleasure, and deprivation of pleasure (which is a form of pain). However, a person who doesn’t exist doesn’t feel pain and cannot suffer from thr absence of happiness, because they’re dead.

A person can only suffer from coming into existence. By not forcing a person into existence, you don’t actually deprive him/her of pleasure because they don’t exist. They can’t suffer from that. Existence is suffering.

While this is a rational reason to commit suicide, it can also be a reason for someone to kill another.

People prevent suicide because they assume suicide is harmful for the person. An antinatalist can kill someone and explain that what he did was in fact, morally valid. Just like the suicide-preventor, he prevented the suffering of a person by ending his/her life.

This is dangerous logic because it can be used to hurt others under the guise you help them. By finding a way to explain why your actions benefit the person, you can go on preventing suicide, killing or abusing.

Human civilization can’t live this way. Therefore, it’s important to establish another right and that is the right to self-harm.

A person has the right to self-harm. If a person does something that you consider harmful to him/her, you have no obligation to intervene.

You are only allowed to intervene if actual results and the desirable result are vastly different.

For example, a person can slice their wrists for various reasons. One of the actual results of that is that they will cause permenant damage if they hit a nerve.

Now, if they want to cause such permenant damage, they have a right to do that. It’s their body. However, if the desired result is to relieve pain then it’s okay to intervene and stop them from harming themselves. That’s how we will help the person gain his desirable result – relieve his pain. We will help the person fulfill his desires, direct him towards better means of achieving that.

That’s also why, although I think euthanasia should be available for anyone I don’t think that a person should get it as soon as he requests (except for extreme cases). The person will first go through a therapy to help him understand better what he wants.

Some people do regret attempting suicide and some regret not acting on it. So it will be better if we will help people understand what they want. If a person wants a better life, we need to prevent that person’s suicide because it won’t get them a better life. If the person desires non-existence, not being themselves we have an obligation to help them.

The right to self-harm means a person has a right to do things to their own body, which we will consider harmful to ours. The best way to know when we’re allowed to intervene is whether the results the person wants are the same thing the harming action gets him.

By respecting this right, antinatalists and natalists can live side-by-side. Antinatalists will respect the fact others want to live even if they find it undesirable. Natalists will respect the fact others desire non-existence, even if they consider death an inheritently bad thing.

For more about the Asymmetry Argument:

http://why-im-sold-on-antinatalism.blogspot.co.il/2012/01/benatarian-asymmetry.html

Tove Lo – Queen of the Clouds

queenoftheclouds

In almost every disucssion involving the thrillng (yet repetitive) subject of romantic love, I pointed out how different men and women experience it. Men suffer from a lack of attention, from a loneliness that’s like a black hole sucking up the joy from everything. I rarely met any women who complains about that. Rather, there is always a stream of guys waiting to get in bed with them. Their biggest problem is that they’re just not the guys they want, or that they only want sex.

I know I can come off as a prick in these discussions. If I told a poor man that my steak was cooked well-done, he’d laugh at me and tell me to be thankful I at least have a steak. This is generally how I reacted when I heard women getting ‘burned out’ on male attention.

Queen of the Cloud both confirms my view and challenges it. Nowhere in these songs Tove Lo talks about being really alone. That emptiness you hear in American Football isn’t here. There’s nothing like “Forget Her”. Yet it doesn’t make it any less emotionally effective. Like Lana Del Rey, Tove Lo shows things from a very female perspective and brings depth to her character.

Lana Del Rey is a good comparison. They both play a very similar character. They’re both sexually charged and heartbroken. The first third is about picking up hot guys in the clubs and telling them that if they love her right, they will fuck for life. Tove Lo’s character is more of an everywoman, one who wants to enjoy life and just happens to stumble upon a guy who makes her feel like she’s on drugs.

There have been plenty of break-up albums. What makes Queen of the Clouds distinct is, other than the obviously female perspective, is its coherency. It’s not just that the album is split into 3 parts with obvious titles. Each song in them show the progress.

The Sex part starts with “My Gun” and “Like Em Young”, which are general statements that Tove Lo likes to have sex and she prefers young guys. It’s a good time to stop and ask why do women can sing about hot guys without sounding so hateful. “Talking Body” is where she actually meets the hot guy, and is one of the best ever songs written about sex. The way she sings “If you love me right” is pure joy. Isn’t this how sex should be, fun and joyous?

We’ve been bombarded by female artists ‘reclaiming sexuality’. What they did was brag that they got ass and that rappers write songs about them. I don’t see it as a major achievement to have a hateful sex rap written about you, but such are things. These artists weren’t really sexual, though. They bragged about their sexuality, which is like bragging about packing guns or pwning noobs in World of Warcraft. In the end, the subject of your song is how awesome you are, not sex.

That’s not so in Tove Lo’s case. Her sexuality is full of joy and excitement. She doesn’t have sex to prove anything to us. She will fuck him for life if it goes right, if it’s fun enough. The whole first half as bouncy, EDM-like production that’s more about warm tones rather than aggressive sounds.

It gets more interesting as it goes on. There’s not much to say about the Love part. “I’m not on drugs/I’m just in love” is a line so brilliant that it raises an otherwise average song. There is also a lot of dubstep influence. What sticks out are the hesitation and insecurity in “Moments”. This is where Tove Lo reminds me that in heaven it’s as it is on Earth. Tove Lo shouldn’t feel insecure about attracting guys. She’s a famous singer who looks good and writes better than lyrics than almost anyone in her sound. Yet when she sings “I have my moments”, she sounds desperate to convince herself more than to convince the guy. Haven’t I felt this before?

The Pain part is the album’s beating heart, where Tove Lo sounds like she’s pouring all passion into. She still gets plenty of male attention. On “Habits” she talks about picking daddies in the playground and going home with other people to numb the pain. Yet it doesn’t work. This is where “This Time Around” comes in. It’s the beating heart of the record. The decision to add a boring house track after it is plain stupidity.

Everyone tells me that love is an unpredictable thing. I wish it was, but Tove Lo seems to agree with me despite our completely different experiences. “This Time Around” isn’t just a eulogy for a relationship. It’s lamenting how repetitive the whole thing is. We go all in only to find that we’re the same at the end and we can no longer feel it. Maybe it doesn’t matter how much attention you get. When you get burned out you’re no longer feeling it, and every time you try it’s the same thing.

Although the songs are good enough on their own, it’s mostly the concept that holds this album together. It’s a joy to listen to from beginning to end, because every song connects to the other. “Moments” opens up The Love with hesitation, while “Not on Drugs” is the climax where you’re feeling like you are on drugs. “Timebomb” ends The Sex with the excitement that makes you indifferent to anything else. “Thousand Miles” opens The Pain with the will to go back to the person, before you realize how much he’s hurt you.

A concept album doesn’t have to tell us the exact events. Music is always better at delivering an emotional experience than an intellectual one. Turning a philosophical essay into pop song will make it lose most of its depth. Turning a political essay to a rock song makes it propaganda. The concept works here because every song documents What It Feels Like in every stage of the relationship. That brings it closer to The Downward Spiral rather than that awful Muse album.

Only “Habits”, “Talking Body” and “This Time Around” truly stick out, although they’re all candidates for Best Pop Songs Ever list. Still, nothing here is filler and the songs that end up without melody (“Timebomb” especially) are musically interesting enough. Recently I’ve been thinking we’re in one of the best eras of Pop music. Albums like this are the reason.

3.5 clouds out of 5