Better Never to Have Been: the Harm of Coming Into Existence Free
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FREE BETTER NEVER TO HAVE BEEN: THE HARM OF COMING INTO EXISTENCE PDF David Benatar | 256 pages | 15 Sep 2008 | Oxford University Press | 9780199549269 | English | Oxford, United Kingdom Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence - Oxford Scholarship He is best known for his advocacy of antinatalism. Here is a summary of his basic argument. It is commonly assumed that we do nothing wrong bringing future people into existence if their lives will, on balance, be good. This assumes that being brought into existence is generally beneficial. Here it is in matrix form:. The first is that: 1 while there is a duty not to bring people who will suffer into the world supports 3there is no duty to bring people who will be happy into the world supports 4. Thus a lack of suffering is always good, whether or not someone exists to enjoy this absence; whereas a lack of happiness is not always bad unless people exist to be denied it. His second argument is that though we think it strange to say we have children so they will benefit, we think it normal to say we should not have children because they will be harmed. His third argument to support the asymmetry is that while not having children may be bad or good for the living, not having been born is no deprivation for those who have never been born. This fundamental asymmetry—suffering is an intrinsic harm, but the absence of pleasure is not—allows Benatar to draw his nihilistic conclusions. In other words, the measure by which the absence of pain is better than its presence is itself greater than the measure by which the presence of pleasure is better than its absence. This means that not existing is either a lot better than existing, in the case of pain or a little worse, in the case of pleasure. Or to think of it another way, the absence of pain and the presence of pleasure are both good, but the presence of pain is much worse than the absence of pleasure. Here is my own thought experiment to help explain this. Suppose that before you were born the gods were trying to decide whether to create you. To further his argument, Benatar notes that most persons underestimate how much suffering they will endure. If their lives are going better than most, they count themselves lucky. Consider death. It is a tragedy at any age and only seems acceptable at ninety because of our expectations about lifespans. But is lamenting death inconsistent with his antinatalism? Benatar thinks not. While non-existence does not harm a possible person, death is another harm that will come to those in existence. Benatar grants that you may not be mistaken if you claim that you are Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence glad to have been born, but you could still be mistaken that it was better to have been born at all. You might now be glad you were Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence and then suffer so badly later that you change your mind. Does it follow that no one should have children? Benatar claims that to answer yes to this question goes against a basic drive to reproduce, so we must be careful not to let such drives bias our analysis. Having children satisfies many needs for those who bring children into existence, but this does not mean it serves the interests of the children—in fact, it Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence them great harm. One could reply that the Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence is not that great to the children, since the benefits of existing may outweigh the harm, and, at any rate, we cannot ask future persons if they want to be born. Since we enjoy our lives we assume they will too, thus providing the justification for satisfying our procreational needs. Most people do not regret their existence, and if some do we could not have foreseen it. But might we be deceiving ourselves about how good life is? Most of us assume life would be unbearable if we were in certain situations. But often, when we find ourselves in these situations, we adapt. Could it be that we have adapted to a relatively unbearable life now? Benatar says that a superior species might look at our species with sympathy for our sorry state. And the reason we deceive ourselves is that we have been wired by evolution to think this way—it aids our survival. You may think it tragic to allow the human race to die out, but it would be hard to explain this by appealing to the interests of potential people. David Benatar Lanham, Md. Definitely makes me think long and hard about procreation and life. It is kind sort of odd how we celebrate life. He says that the absence of pain is good, even if there is no one to experience it. Pain is only bad because people experience it not because of pain itself. Glad to see others reading through these things as well. Third premise can also say something about an actual suffering person. For example, the pain I experience right now is bad. I am disadvantaged. The nail in my hand better never to have happened regardless of me being there or not. Bolstered by the fact that I am not worse on the account of absent goods fourth premise. How could death, which is the cessation of current and future pain, be bad? I always refer to Ernest Becker when I consider how humans relate to death. According to Becker most of us think death is bad mostly because we fear the unknown. Logically it seems to me that if living is a harm then death itself cannot be bad. Dying painfully might be bad but a life that is a harm ending cannot be a bad thing once we get past these irrational fears. Yes I know, easier said than done. I know this from some experience. I return to it occasionally. Zapffe would address my problem here! Maybe just his style: maybe a novel or a poem or a work of art intuits more than a dry philosophical work. All points well taken Scott. Best, JGM. Your email address will not be published. Notify me of new posts by email. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Summary — It is better never to come into existence as being born is always a harm. Liked it? Take a second to support Dr John Messerly on Patreon! Take care. A nail in my hand bette never to Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence hapoened regardless of me bing there or not. Good question. Multiple posts under the death heading discuss this topic in great detail. You should remove it. Thanks for pointing that out. I believe I have found a real picture and put it up. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Better Never to Have Been - Wikipedia David Benatar born is a South African philosopher, academic and author. He is best known for his advocacy of antinatalism in his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existencein which he argues that coming into existence is a serious harm, regardless of the feelings of the existing being once brought into existence, and that, as a consequence, it is always morally wrong to create more sentient beings. Not much is known about Benatar's personal life as he deliberately guards his privacy. He has held antinatalist views since his childhood. Benatar argues from the Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence that pain is, in itself, a bad thing. Benatar has stated his lack of approval toward the benevolent world-exploder view. Benatar argues there is crucial asymmetry between the good and the bad things, such as pleasure and pain, which means it would be better for humans not to have been born:. Benatar argues that bringing someone into existence Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation. Benatar raises the issue of whether humans inaccurately estimate the true quality of their lives, and has Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence three psychological phenomena which he believes are responsible for this:. The above psychological phenomena are unsurprising from an evolutionary perspective. They militate against suicide and in favour of reproduction. If our lives are quite as bad as I shall still Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence they are, and if people were prone to see this true quality of their lives for what it is, they might be much more inclined to kill themselves, or at least not to produce more such lives. Pessimism, then, tends not to be naturally selected. Benatar's The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys examines various issues regarding misandry and the negative socially-imposed aspects of male identity. As a work within the men's liberation movementit does not seek to attack or diminish the ideas of feminismbut rather to shine light on the parallel existence of systemic and cultural discrimination against men and boys, and how it simultaneously contributes to the oppression of women.