David Benatar: Better Never To Have Been

[quatona]

Has anyone here read it?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

NO it sounds a bit depressing and by definitiomn pessimistic. I dont thing one can meke an a priori judgement aboput life, or generalise too much. Mine has been horrific at times and I have been suicidal, but I am enjoying being me at the moment. Just as we strive individually for better quality of life, I am part of human histroy. So even if I sink below the surface at times, I still believe my efforts and endurances, not to mention escapology skills, will help to generate better futures somehow as we face being and the value of it intelligently. We can be craftsmen, philosophical sculptors, and the clay is not all that bad. You know now I have been told that I can represent good example to people, whereas in the past I have been a terror. I am not utopian but I believe that if society takes secular ethics seriously than things can improve. After all its aim is generating a good life, so therefore it ought to make life itself benign if the project is successful. Dont look back to the night before life, but forwards to the dawns to come.

 

[AlexBP]

I haven't read it, and all I know about it comes from this review in The New Yorker. The reviewer summarizes Benatar's argument thusly:

Benatar’s case rests on a critical but, in his view, unappreciated asymmetry. Consider two couples, the A’s and the B’s. The A’s are young, healthy, and rich. If they had children, they could give them the best of everything—schools, clothes, electronic gaming devices. Even so, we would not say that the A’s have a moral obligation to reproduce.


The B’s are just as young and rich. But both have a genetic disease, and, were they to have a child together, that child would suffer terribly. We would say, using Benatar’s logic, that the B’s have an ethical obligation not to procreate.


The case of the A’s and the B’s shows that we regard pleasure and pain differently. Pleasure missed out on by the nonexistent doesn’t count as a harm. Yet suffering avoided counts as a good, even when the recipient is a nonexistent one.


And what holds for the A’s and the B’s is basically true for everyone. Even the best of all possible lives consists of a mixture of pleasure and pain. Had the pleasure been forgone—that is, had the life never been created—no one would have been the worse for it. But the world is worse off because of the suffering brought needlessly into it.


“One of the implications of my argument is that a life filled with good and containing only the most minute quantity of bad—a life of utter bliss adulterated only by the pain of a single pin-prick—is worse than no life at all,” Benatar writes.
​

It sounds rather goofy to me. The notion that one can prove humanity shouldn't exist based on a bit of clever logical trickery doesn't convince because it just can't be taken seriously. As Chesterton says in Orthodoxy, life is good, and mentally healthy people affirm the value of life even while acknowledging the existence of suffering. Any creed that leads one to the conclusion that humanity should be wiped out can be dismissed based on that.

Benatar's argument seems more likely to serve as a warning than as a serious philosophical statement. It demonstrates what Chesterton said, that those modern-day intellectuals who propose to liberate humanity with their supposedly rational analysis of existence and the human condition end up wallowing in despair. Better to avoid them. Benatar is a fine example of why so much of the humanities and social sciences realm has made itself utterly irrelevant to the great majority of the human race.

 

[Paradoxum]

Benatar's argument seems more likely to serve as a warning than as a serious philosophical statement. It demonstrates what Chesterton said, that those modern-day intellectuals who propose to liberate humanity with their supposedly rational analysis of existence and the human condition end up wallowing in despair. Better to avoid them. Benatar is a fine example of why so much of the humanities and social sciences realm has made itself utterly irrelevant to the great majority of the human race.

The majority of the human race are ignorant morons who don't respect liberty and equality, so I don't see why I should really care what they think.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Has anyone here read it?

Haven't read it but based on the general summary online, his argument seems to hinge on the idea that it is better to not exist than to exist in a world of suffering.

The problem is that the most optimistic, live-loving people I know are those that have suffered greatly. Suffering is not bad in and of itself. Our attitudes and responses to hardship and suffering is what makes the difference. We look upon the amputee with pity and say, "Oh the poor soul, why would God allow this?!" But the amputee looks upon us and says, "Oh those poor souls, wasting their time pitying me!"

 

[quatona]

NO it sounds a bit depressing and by definitiomn pessimistic. I dont thing one can meke an a priori judgement aboput life, or generalise too much. Mine has been horrific at times and I have been suicidal, but I am enjoying being me at the moment. Just as we strive individually for better quality of life, I am part of human histroy. So even if I sink below the surface at times, I still believe my efforts and endurances, not to mention escapology skills, will help to generate better futures somehow as we face being and the value of it intelligently. We can be craftsmen, philosophical sculptors, and the clay is not all that bad. You know now I have been told that I can represent good example to people, whereas in the past I have been a terror. I am not utopian but I believe that if society takes secular ethics seriously than things can improve. After all its aim is generating a good life, so therefore it ought to make life itself benign if the project is successful. Dont look back to the night before life, but forwards to the dawns to come.

Thanks for your responses, GS and everybody.

Yes, his conclusions are counterintuitive, unsettling, maybe disturbing even.
However, he makes a pretty strong case for them as his arguments are carefully constructed, even more so since he starts from widely held and agreed upon premises.

Now, everyone is perfectly entitled to reject a philosophy for basically the reason that it rubs them the wrong way or is incompatible with their feelings or creeds (although, to be honest, I´d expect a little more on a philosophy forum).
There was a reason why I asked "Has anyone read it?" instead of "Give me your general outlook on life".

 

[Gracchus]

The majority of the human race are ignorant morons who don't respect liberty and equality, so I don't see why I should really care what they think.

"Liberty" is always limited, always constrained. Equality, except in mathematics, is always approximate. Ignorance is relative, and although nearly half of all people are of below average intelligence, nearly half of all people are above average in that department.
And if you don't pay attention to what they think, they are very likely to make you very, very sorry. After all, a moron can kill you just as dead as a genius.

 

[Paradoxum]

"Liberty" is always limited, always constrained.

My understanding of liberty contains that understanding.

Equality, except in mathematics, is always approximate.

True, but that doesn't make it ok to oppress black people (for example) just because some questions are harder.

Ignorance is relative, and although nearly half of all people are of below average intelligence, nearly half of all people are above average in that department.

Ignorance isn't relative. No more than truth.

And if you don't pay attention to what they think, they are very likely to make you very, very sorry. After all, a moron can kill you just as dead as a genius.

True, but I'm talking about considering their opinion on what is true, moral, or ethical.

 

[AlexBP]

Yes, his conclusions are counterintuitive, unsettling, maybe disturbing even. However, he makes a pretty strong case for them as his arguments are carefully constructed, even more so since he starts from widely held and agreed upon premises.

Now, everyone is perfectly entitled to reject a philosophy for basically the reason that it rubs them the wrong way or is incompatible with their feelings or creeds (although, to be honest, I´d expect a little more on a philosophy forum). There was a reason why I asked "Has anyone read it?" instead of "Give me your general outlook on life".

If I had world enough and time, I'd read every book out there. (Except for the really offensive and disgusting ones, that is.) John Milton supposedly did that, but the number of books was slightly lower in his time. I have to make choices about what books to read, and based on the review I linked to, Benatar's book is too loopy to be worth my time.

I do not reject Benatar's argument because of feelings or because it rubs me the wrong way. I reject it because I don't find it a sound argument. "Pleasure missed out on by the nonexistent doesn’t count as a harm. Yet suffering avoided counts as a good, even when the recipient is a nonexistent one." This, to be, is a bit of pseudo-intellectual flim-flam. Suppose I lived in unending bliss, except that for a brief moment I stub my toe and it hurts. Should I have been eliminated before I was even born, just so that the stubbing of my toe could be avoided? If not, then Benatar's argument falls apart.

 

[quatona]

If I had world enough and time, I'd read every book out there. (Except for the really offensive and disgusting ones, that is.) John Milton supposedly did that, but the number of books was slightly lower in his time. I have to make choices about what books to read, and based on the review I linked to, Benatar's book is too loopy to be worth my time.

I do not reject Benatar's argument because of feelings or because it rubs me the wrong way. I reject it because I don't find it a sound argument. "Pleasure missed out on by the nonexistent doesn’t count as a harm. Yet suffering avoided counts as a good, even when the recipient is a nonexistent one." This, to be, is a bit of pseudo-intellectual flim-flam. Suppose I lived in unending bliss, except that for a brief moment I stub my toe and it hurts. Should I have been eliminated before I was even born, just so that the stubbing of my toe could be avoided? If not, then Benatar's argument falls apart.

Of course you are free to judge books you haven´t read.

 

[Gadarene]

I have a few arguments of my own creation (none of them turned out to be original in the end, but hey-ho , at least they're good'uns ) about whether it'd be better to have existed or not in a world with an omniscient creator and a place of eternal punishment for failing arbitrary tests (ahem), but if Benetar is arguing about the "merely" material world then I'd be interested in taking a look at it.

Although if I stop and think about it, I do try and factor in both pleasures missed by the could-have-existed-but-didn't and suffering avoided when I contemplate such things.

I like Benetar in general though, he's a decent writer. I have The Second Sexism, really need to finish it.

 

[brightlights]

Has anyone here read it?

It seems to me that if he really believed his thesis he would be dead. Instead, he's writing books.

 

[Elioenai26]

The majority of the human race are ignorant morons who don't respect liberty and equality, so I don't see why I should really care what they think.

You dismiss the "majority" of the human race as being moronic, and lament that they do not "respect" liberty and equality, but this is done with an attitude of blatant disrespect and apathy.

Should these morons care that you think they are morons?

 

[Elioenai26]

I think it quite ironic how people can even entertain the idea of whether or not it would be better for them to never have existed. The irony is not so easily comprehended I guess.

 

[Elioenai26]

I haven't read it, and all I know about it comes from this review in The New Yorker. The reviewer summarizes Benatar's argument thusly:

Benatar’s case rests on a critical but, in his view, unappreciated asymmetry. Consider two couples, the A’s and the B’s. The A’s are young, healthy, and rich. If they had children, they could give them the best of everything—schools, clothes, electronic gaming devices. Even so, we would not say that the A’s have a moral obligation to reproduce.


The B’s are just as young and rich. But both have a genetic disease, and, were they to have a child together, that child would suffer terribly. We would say, using Benatar’s logic, that the B’s have an ethical obligation not to procreate.


The case of the A’s and the B’s shows that we regard pleasure and pain differently. Pleasure missed out on by the nonexistent doesn’t count as a harm. Yet suffering avoided counts as a good, even when the recipient is a nonexistent one.


And what holds for the A’s and the B’s is basically true for everyone. Even the best of all possible lives consists of a mixture of pleasure and pain. Had the pleasure been forgone—that is, had the life never been created—no one would have been the worse for it. But the world is worse off because of the suffering brought needlessly into it.


“One of the implications of my argument is that a life filled with good and containing only the most minute quantity of bad—a life of utter bliss adulterated only by the pain of a single pin-prick—is worse than no life at all,” Benatar writes.
​

It sounds rather goofy to me. The notion that one can prove humanity shouldn't exist based on a bit of clever logical trickery doesn't convince because it just can't be taken seriously. As Chesterton says in Orthodoxy, life is good, and mentally healthy people affirm the value of life even while acknowledging the existence of suffering. Any creed that leads one to the conclusion that humanity should be wiped out can be dismissed based on that.

Benatar's argument seems more likely to serve as a warning than as a serious philosophical statement. It demonstrates what Chesterton said, that those modern-day intellectuals who propose to liberate humanity with their supposedly rational analysis of existence and the human condition end up wallowing in despair. Better to avoid them. Benatar is a fine example of why so much of the humanities and social sciences realm has made itself utterly irrelevant to the great majority of the human race.

Benatar's argument is, to put it nicely, horrible.

He compares life, to non-life, and even goes one step further to say that non-existence would be better than a certain type of existence.

Well, the two are not even comparable. Non-life or non-existence is nothing. It is no-thing. It is not anything. It is the barest of all concepts that the mind can entertain, I mean just think about it! Think about "no-thing".......

What comes to mind? LOL, nothing!

Life, even the most bitterest and harshest life is still life. Nothing is nothing and nothing plus nothing is nothing and nothing minus nothing is nothing. He is trying to make a point, but it is just.........well, for the lack of a better word..................... nothing............

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I think it quite ironic how people can even entertain the idea of whether or not it would be better for them to never have existed. The irony is not so easily comprehended I guess.

Irony doesn't mean what you think it means. Try "incoherent."

 

[quatona]

I think it quite ironic how people can even entertain the idea of whether or not it would be better for them to never have existed. The irony is not so easily comprehended I guess.

I guess that´s why Benatar´s book is not a complaint about his own life but a philosophical consideration.
As for practical implications he has in mind: He is concerned with procreation.

 

[quatona]

Benatar's argument is, to put it nicely, horrible.

He compares life, to non-life, and even goes one step further to say that non-existence would be better than a certain type of existence.

Well, the two are not even comparable. Non-life or non-existence is nothing. It is no-thing. It is not anything. It is the barest of all concepts that the mind can entertain, I mean just think about it! Think about "no-thing".......

What comes to mind? LOL, nothing!

Life, even the most bitterest and harshest life is still life. Nothing is nothing and nothing plus nothing is nothing and nothing minus nothing is nothing. He is trying to make a point, but it is just.........well, for the lack of a better word..................... nothing............

That would indeed be one of my main objections, as well.
Interestingly enough, this objection - if applied consistently - must also be held against the common idea (which, btw, I mostly hear from theistic circles, and often as an argument for God´s greatness) that existence is better than non-existence and that creatorship is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[quatona]

It seems to me that if he really believed his thesis he would be dead.

You mean he could have prevented coming into existence? Can you tell me about the method?

 

[Eudaimonist]

“One of the implications of my argument is that a life filled with good and containing only the most minute quantity of bad—a life of utter bliss adulterated only by the pain of a single pin-prick—is worse than no life at all,” Benatar writes.

That is a silly argument.

We may have an obligation not to intentionally put others in harm's way such that they, in his words, "suffer terribly", but that doesn't mean that we have an obligation to ourselves avoid a "minute quantity of bad". One can accept the former and deny the latter without contradiction.

Personally, I could understand someone entertaining suicide if he was trapped in a concentration camp or gulag. Suffering can become so great that death would seem preferable because life would not be worth living any longer. Life wouldn't hold the sort of values that make the choice to live aimed at some worthwhile good.

Note that I don't think that death would be a positive good in this case. It's more that one's life would be equivalent (not equal) to death in lacking any significant good to make the suffering worthwhile, leaving open the option of suicide.

However, this is not the normal state of affairs for people. We generally don't live in concentration camps or gulags. Whatever suffering (or "bad") there may be in people's lives, there are enough good values to make one's life worth choosing for its own sake.


eudaimonia,

Mark