Explain why staying alive is more important then actually living.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
First, that's a logical contradiction. Living is worthless when one is not alive.
Second, there is a heirarchy to happiness. We've got health on the one hand, and we've got aesthetic pleasure on the other. The argument can simply and effectively be presented as a comparison.
Consider that we're judging art and medicine on the basis of the "good" that they provide. First we have to define the "good", and for the purposes of my argument I'll define it under classical utilitarianism, as in the creation of happiness and the prevention of pain. Under this model, it becomes necessary to distinguish between the orders of happiness. The highest happinesses being the excercise of one's right to life and continued existence, and the lowest happinesses being the fulfillment of base desires. A desire for sketch comedy, in this case.
So let's weigh these two concepts. Creation and distribution of, say, antibiotics, or clean water, with sketch comedy. Sketch comedy may cause happiness and pleasure in those that watch it, this is undeniably true. But antibiotics cure plagues, prolong life and thus, maximize our potential for happiness. Many people would be happy that they were able to effectively cheat death. Reasonable calculus weighs medicine against art.
The assumption that life is not worth living without certain arbitrary sensory pleasures is irrational, animalistic hedonism. It also implies that those who are unable to enjoy art are not truly alive, which is a narcissistic claim at best.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
zappa would disagree.