Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Is it better never to have been born?

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Is it better never to have been born?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Okay hello everyone! First time poster here.

I've read David Benator's book "Better never to have been : The pain of coming into existence" and I simply can't see how anyone can disagree with his conclusions if they follow his main argument with a clarity of thinking philosophers should be prepared to cultivate.

His argument is simple but devastatingly persuasive to my ears. He states that if you are born you experience both good (positive mental states) and bad (negative mental states) during the course of your life. If, however, one is never born then one won't experience bad (pain, anxiety, discomfort etc). This is a good thing obviously. Of course, if one is never born one never experiences any positive mental states (joy, love, sexual satisfaction etc) either. However, if there is nobody to experience these positive mental states I challenge any poster here to suggest how this can be a negative thing FOR THE PERSON who never came into existence.

So let's look at the following analysis of the RELATIVE merits of being born as opposed to not being born:

Scenario A: You are born. You experience both pleasure and pain throughout your life. You die. Pleasure experienced? Yes. Pain experienced? Yes.

What can we say about this? We can say that being born was partly a good thing for the individual due to the pleasure experienced in his/her life (+1) and we can say that being born was also partly negative for that person because of the pain they experienced (-1) during the course of their life. So we have a (+1) and a (-1) for being born.

Now let's look at scenario B: You are not born. You never come into existence. End of story. Pleasure experienced? No. Pain experienced? No.

What can we possibly say about this non-existent person? Well, we can say that he never experienced (or will experience) any positive mental states. That's surely a bad thing, right? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Existence precedes essence. If there is no person to experience any deprivation of positive mental states how can we possibly say that that 'non-person' has been deprived or robbed in any way, shape or form? WE CAN'T!

As a result of this fact it would be wholly inaccurate to describe the non-existence of a person as a negative thing for the non-existent person in any way (pleasure OR pain considerations). Sure we can most assuredly state that being a non-existent person is not a positive thing in terms of not being able to experience positive mental states - the obvious outcome of their not being born. But this does not give us licence to claim the opposite either - that somehow not being born causes a harm to the person who was not born as they would miss out on the positive things that life can offer. Clearly then not being born is neither positive or negative in terms of the inability to experience pleasure. It is clearly neutral.

Now let's look at the pain that a non-existent person avoids by not being born. He never comes into existence so he never experiences any pain. That is a good thing!(+1) But wait, I can hear you forming objections to this even as I type. Surely, you may object, if nobody is born how can the lack of experienced pain be a good thing as there would be nobody to experience the total lack of pain. Well...simply because of the fact that we can legitimately compare the suffering a person experiences in his life with the lack of pain he would have experienced if he had never been born in the first place to experience that pain. We can make that comparison I assure you. We can always say to somebody who was born: "I'm going to make you rue the day that your father ever laid eyes on your mother" shortly before torturing them to death. But we cannot say to a non-existent person (or anything else for that matter): "Suffer, non-existent person, suffer! Experience the deprivation of pleasure and weep for the lost opportunity you had to experience the wonder that life would have had in store for you if you had been born."

So we have a (+1) and a (-1) for being born and we have (neutral) and +1 for not being born. I'm not a math(s) whizz but you should now be able to clearly see why you should never have any children.

@Shattered Glass,

I only read the first line but felt this would sum it up for me.
Everyone has the right not just to feel happy and ex-static and pleasure and strong in life but also the right to feel sad and static and pain and weak.

(will read the rest when I can bring a bit more optimism)

@Shattered Glass,

Shattered Glass;162501 wrote:

So we have a (+1) and a (-1) for being born and we have (neutral) and +1 for not being born. I'm not a math(s) whizz but you should now be able to clearly see why you should never have any children.

But see, if no one was ever born, then there would be no basis for the +1 bonus point for being non-existent.

Shattered Glass;162501 wrote:

What can we possibly say about this non-existent person? Well, we can say that he never experienced (or will experience) any positive mental states. That's surely a bad thing, right? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Existence precedes essence. If there is no person to experience any deprivation of positive mental states how can we possibly say that that 'non-person' has been deprived or robbed in any way, shape or form? WE CAN'T!

Okay. Let's assume Existence precedes essence-for a thing to have essence it must be first be existent. How can you provide essence to these non-existent humans you are claiming about? You say we cannot rationalize the non-existent person "has been deprived or robbed in any way shape or form..", but why is the non-existent person's lack of pain a positive? Is lack of pleasure a negative? Because the non-existent person, being all non-existent and all, can't experience pleasure. Why not use the same logic to give him/her a -1?

Cats don't worry about these sorts of things... (P.S. welcome to the forums Glass! Very Happy

)

@Shattered Glass,

The discussion presents some questions.

How can a "person" be un-born? Does it make sense to talk of a being of something that literally is not?
How can a person chose not to be born?
How can a person, even supposedly he could chose, ever determine the exact course of his life and determine that it would not be all positives, etc..
Can pleasure or pain, however one wants to define it, ever be neatly assigned some single value of plus or minus? Should it?
And of course there is the born's value to Others in addition to his own; if one reads about Beethoven, surely the negatives outweighed the plusses I suppose, but what about the absolute plus his living and creating gave to countless Others?

@Shattered Glass,

Sort of a moot question since only the living can ask and answer it, and they are biased...

It might have been better for a lot of people for me never to have been born because I have done a lot of damage... But who says I was??? My father found me under a fig leaf is the story I heard... Could be true... Sounds like a good place for a larvae to hang... But now you are stuck with me, so let's make the best of it..

@Shattered Glass,

Shattered Glass;162501 wrote:

Okay hello everyone! First time poster here.

I've read David Benator's book "Better never to have been : The pain of coming into existence" and I simply can't see how anyone can disagree with his conclusions if they follow his main argument with a clarity of thinking philosophers should be prepared to cultivate.

.

The trouble is , as the old Jewish joke has it, that although it is clearly better never to have been born, how many of us can be that lucky?

@Shattered Glass,

What's this +1 and -1 stuff? Isn't the point to aim for +5 and -1?

I wonder if this guy ever goes to movies. "If I don't like that, I'll call it -1. And if I do, that'll be +1. Therefore, it is a net of 0 and there is no reason to go".

@Shattered Glass,

It probably is better which is why trillions upon trillions of potential pregnancies are stopped by contraception or by terrible aims (a.k.a. masturbation).

@Shattered Glass,

"Okay. Let's assume Existence precedes essence-for a thing to have essence it must be first be existent. How can you provide essence to these non-existent humans you are claiming about?"

You can't provide essence to non-existent people but what you can say is that someone who regrets that they were born would not have experienced that regret and suffering if they had never come into existence. If this were not the case there would be no reason to not go ahead and bring new people into the world regardless of how much pain their coming into existence will bring them. Do we really think that it is ethical to bring people into the world if we know there is a high probability that they will regret having come into existence?

"You say we cannot rationalize the non-existent person 'has been deprived or robbed in any way shape or form..' but why is the non-existent person's lack of pain a positive?"

Because the possibilities of a new person coming into existence is a window of opportunity for the net sum of suffering in the world to increase. If the possibility of this new life emerging is thrawted (eg. through an anti-procreation belief) this is a good thing for the net sum of suffering in the world (ie it is less than would otherwise have been the case) even if there is noone present to be congratulated for escaping from the unpleasant features of human existence.

Is lack of pleasure a negative?

Not in the non-existent. Lack of pleasure is only a negative thing in those who exist. Notice the assymetry - this is key to Benatar's argument.

"Because the non-existent person, being all non-existent and all, can't experience pleasure. Why not use the same logic to give him/her a -1?"

Because it is only existent human beings who can carry out a benefits and cost analysis of the merits of coming into this world. Non-existent 'potential' people cannot tally up the advantages and diasadvantages of being born and indeed they have no interest in doing so as they have no mental states or interests whatsoever. We therefore cannot legitimately say that they were deprived of the pleasures of existence - which is another way of saying that there is no valid reason, based on the interests of a potential but not yet existent human being, to bring that person into existence.

People who do come into existence, on the other hand, are very much capable of making an evaluation of the merits of being born viz not being born and a significant minority find life wanting to such a degree that they feel compelled to end it dramatically through suicide, despite 3 and a half billion years of evolution which militates against self-killing. If the parents of these suicidees had abstained from having children these unfortunate people would not have had the misfortune of being born and being tormented by life to such a degree that they decided to end it violently. On the other hand, although if they had never been born they wouldn't have been able to thank their parents or their lucky stars for not coming into existence, the universe as a whole would have been a better place due to the reduced level of suffering in the world.

I hope this answers your questions but I have found in the past that there is a lot of resistance from people to these lines of thought for obvious reasons. We desperately want to feel that we were benefitted or at least not harmed by being born. The possibilty that this may not be the case is very unsettling for some and can lead certain individuals to adopt a smug, macho tone which belies an inappropriate indifference to the suffering of others. Just like the little fella on the left. :poke-eye:

@Jebediah,

Shattered Glass;162501 wrote:

Okay hello everyone! First time poster here.

I've read David Benator's book "Better never to have been : The pain of coming into existence" and I simply can't see how anyone can disagree with his conclusions if they follow his main argument with a clarity of thinking philosophers should be prepared to cultivate.

His argument is simple but devastatingly persuasive to my ears. He states that if you are born you experience both good (positive mental states) and bad (negative mental states) during the course of your life. If, however, one is never born then one won't experience bad (pain, anxiety, discomfort etc). This is a good thing obviously. Of course, if one is never born one never experiences any positive mental states (joy, love, sexual satisfaction etc) either. However, if there is nobody to experience these positive mental states I challenge any poster here to suggest how this can be a negative thing FOR THE PERSON who never came into existence.

So let's look at the following analysis of the RELATIVE merits of being born as opposed to not being born:

Scenario A: You are born. You experience both pleasure and pain throughout your life. You die. Pleasure experienced? Yes. Pain experienced? Yes.

What can we say about this? We can say that being born was partly a good thing for the individual due to the pleasure experienced in his/her life (+1) and we can say that being born was also partly negative for that person because of the pain they experienced (-1) during the course of their life. So we have a (+1) and a (-1) for being born.

Now let's look at scenario B: You are not born. You never come into existence. End of story. Pleasure experienced? No. Pain experienced? No.

What can we possibly say about this non-existent person? Well, we can say that he never experienced (or will experience) any positive mental states. That's surely a bad thing, right? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Existence precedes essence. If there is no person to experience any deprivation of positive mental states how can we possibly say that that 'non-person' has been deprived or robbed in any way, shape or form? WE CAN'T!

As a result of this fact it would be wholly inaccurate to describe the non-existence of a person as a negative thing for the non-existent person in any way (pleasure OR pain considerations). Sure we can most assuredly state that being a non-existent person is not a positive thing in terms of not being able to experience positive mental states - the obvious outcome of their not being born. But this does not give us licence to claim the opposite either - that somehow not being born causes a harm to the person who was not born as they would miss out on the positive things that life can offer. Clearly then not being born is neither positive or negative in terms of the inability to experience pleasure. It is clearly neutral.

Now let's look at the pain that a non-existent person avoids by not being born. He never comes into existence so he never experiences any pain. That is a good thing!(+1) But wait, I can hear you forming objections to this even as I type. Surely, you may object, if nobody is born how can the lack of experienced pain be a good thing as there would be nobody to experience the total lack of pain. Well...simply because of the fact that we can legitimately compare the suffering a person experiences in his life with the lack of pain he would have experienced if he had never been born in the first place to experience that pain. We can make that comparison I assure you. We can always say to somebody who was born: "I'm going to make you rue the day that your father ever laid eyes on your mother" shortly before torturing them to death. But we cannot say to a non-existent person (or anything else for that matter): "Suffer, non-existent person, suffer! Experience the deprivation of pleasure and weep for the lost opportunity you had to experience the wonder that life would have had in store for you if you had been born."

So we have a (+1) and a (-1) for being born and we have (neutral) and +1 for not being born. I'm not a math(s) whizz but you should now be able to clearly see why you should never have any children.

There are a couple of problems. One is addressed in response to Jebediah below. Another is that there is no one who is getting that +1 for not being born. However, as you can see in the response to Jebediah, I basically agree that it would be better to not have been born, at least most of the time, if not always.

Jebediah;162597 wrote:

What's this +1 and -1 stuff? Isn't the point to aim for +5 and -1?

I wonder if this guy ever goes to movies. "If I don't like that, I'll call it -1. And if I do, that'll be +1. Therefore, it is a net of 0 and there is no reason to go".

I agree that the "+1" and "-1" is making the matter too simplistic. The trouble is, many people have lives that are more like a +1 and -5, and they clearly are far worse off than if they had never been born. As I had no say in the matter, I am here now, and so I will try to make the best of it. If my life, on balance, were more pain than pleasure, I would seek to end it if there were no change in sight.

I decided not to have any children, as I more or less agree that it is better not to have been born, or at least most of the time it is better to not have been born. I reasoned like Socrates in the Crito, except that I came to the opposite conclusion. In my judgment, the world is not a fit place for children, and so I did not bring any into it.

@Shattered Glass,

yeah I agree with Jebediah and Pyrrho. Not only that but what a pessimistic outlook in general.

Think of it this way:

Mr. Benator's argument, I think, would go something like this:

Being blind would be better than having vision. Why? Because you might see some bad stuff and that would be a minus.

But, IMO, potentially seeing bad stuff is worth the risk for getting the opportunity of experiencing all the beauty and wonder I get to behold by having vision.

@Shattered Glass,

Thank you for your replies everyone.

So +1 and -1 is too simplistic for you. I understand but I find it distils the argument to its purest essence: namely, the existence or lack thereof of pleasure and pain in an actual or hypothetically possible person who did not come into existence.

And the +1 is not for the person who does not come into existence. It is for the net sum of suffering in the world. I therefore don't see a problem with regarding the absence of people who could have existed and suffered but did not do so as a positive thing.

And this world is no place for children, Pyrrho, you're right. Not that all children are little angels of course.

Would it be acceptable to throw gold bullion (sp?) out of an airplane and thus risking causing grevious injury to some innocent people and then justify it by claiming that you behaved ethically because many people benefitted from your actions. I don't think so. But that is exactly what people are doing when they decide to have and justify having children. They are running a substantial risk of causing gratuitous pain and suffering to some future person and what is worse, they are not even gambling with their own money (life) but with someone else's.

The moral implications here are immense yet there is not a flicker of consciousness in the general public about these kinds of issues. Indeed, many people spend more time weighing up the pros and cons of purchasing a particular model of car than they do thinking about the morality of procreation.

The whole history of the human race seems to me a sickeningly hysterical, irrational and obsessive adherence to the religeon that is the perpetuation of the human race. There is no reasoning here nor sanity. Clucky feelings trump logic; an urgent need to be a parent outweighs somber deliberations on the human condition. And in the aftermath countless millions of people suffering over milennia of human history for what? Career success? The love of family and friends? Leisurely afternoons on a sunny beach? Finding the Higgs boson in Geneva, Switzerland? These things may seem to many people as if they make life worth CONTINUING but do they make life worth STARTING? Why should any child feel gratitude towards their parents for being born when prior to existence the food, drink, warmth, financial resources, distraction from boredom and feelings of approval from others was not needed. Being born is like being a drug addict needing these things in an environment that may or may not provide them. And what gives anyone the right to reproduce when the easiest and simplest way to ensure that your children do not come to harm is by not having them in the first place? For me that is real love, concern and sacrifice for the interests of the human race. Not creating little versions of oneself as a means to sate one's parental yearnings; not using children as instumental tools to furnish our lives with meaning and activity.

Nobody has a moral obligation to 'do people a favour' and throw that gold out the plane at 50,000 feet. The moral obligation to avoid causing future unnecessary suffering, on the other hand, should rule our minds if not our hearts and encourage us to to keep that fools' gold safe; not disperse it everywhere like wedding confetti, or so many drops of semen. Because who knows if your future child might grow up to write such frightningly cheerful prose such as:

"Forever be accursed the star under which I was born, may no sky protect it, let it crumble in space like dust without honor! And let the traitorous moment that cast me among the creatures be forever erased from the lists of time!"

Emile Cioran

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 06:52 PM ----------

And Amperage...your analagy is, forgive me for saying so, terrible. The non-existent person may be 'blind' but then they don't need, want or desire sight or sensory perceptions. The lack of sight, like the lack of anything else in a non-existent, is NOT a deprivation. It therefore cannot be cited as a reason to START LIFE, only to CONTINUE LIFE. And I'm glad that in your opinion you think that life is worth STARTING. But what gives you the right to superimpose your subjective feelings concerning the value of life on to an as of yet unborn child and thus have children?

And whether a view is pessimistic or optimistic is neither here nor there. :a-thought: What matters is its truth value. And, finally, my view is partially optimistic in that I can envisage a day when the human race no longer exists and then all this pointless and unnecessary human suffering will come to an end. Now there's cause for celebration! :a-ok: Cheers! :phone:

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Is it better never to have been born?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Is it better never to have been born?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know