Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
62 of 66 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Moral philosophy at its best: intelligent, controversial and brutally honest, March 25, 2008
In this remarkable book, the South African philosopher David Benatar attempts to solve, in a most unusual way, some related moral problems concerning matters of life and death. Benatar claims, inter alia, that deliberate procreation is immoral; that abortion is morally mandatory if possible before approximately 30 weeks of gestation; and that the morally optimal size of the human population is ZERO. On the face of it, this may strike the reader as absurd, or even insane, but Benatar is most certainly not a madman, as any reader who gives this book a fair chance will soon acknowledge.
The above-mentioned conclusions all follow more or less straightforwardly from Benatar's main thesis, which is almost literally expressed in the title of the book: For any conscious being (whether human or non-human) it would have been better never to exist, since coming into being is always an overall harm, and thus worse than non-existence, for that being (though not necessarily for other already existing beings, e.g. parents and siblings). Benatar argues for this astounding thesis by drawing attention to an alleged asymmetry between pain and pleasure (both understood broadly): Non-existence implies the absence of both pains and pleasures, but whereas the absence of the pains is something good, it is not the case that the absence of the pleasures is bad or something to be deplored. A potential person is not deprived of anything, claims Benatar, by not being brought into existence.
Some immediate, but confused, objections can be dismissed easily. One example is the objection that life must be an overall good for a person, unless that person is willing to commit suicide. Benatar is at pains to point out the important distinction between judging that a possible life should not be started and judging that an actual life should not be continued. Thus, Benatar's argument does not commit him to the view that we are morally obligated to kill ourselves and/or each other. On the contrary, he quite explicitly denounces such a view (chapter 7), but this is, strangely, lost on several of the book's reviewers.
But is the alleged asymmetry a real asymmetry or only an apparent one? Benatar's argument for the reality of the asymmetry is a lot stronger than many will admit, but it is not quite as strong as he himself seems to think. At bottom, Benatar's argument is a coherence argument: Unless we accept the asymmetry, we cannot make sense of some of our other deeply held convictions, most notable, perhaps, the conviction that "while there is a duty to avoid bringing suffering people into existence, there is no duty to bring happy people into being" (p. 32). However, an argument of this kind is obviously double-edged and able to cut both ways. An opponent might be willing to bite the bullet and, while rejecting asymmetry, accept that we DO have a duty to bring happy people into being. Benatar is aware of this possibility but dismisses it because he thinks it is based on the assumption that people only have derivative value as "mere means to the production of happiness" (p. 37). This, however, is much too quick. The (imaginary) opponent does not need to absurdly abstract the happiness from the person and see the latter as being nothing but a necessary condition, without any inherent value, for the existence of the former. Rather, the question is whether a happy person, considered as a whole, has intrinsic positive value seen from the moral point of view. If this is the case, as I think it is, then it might reasonably be claimed that the possible existence of a happy person provides us with a moral reason to (try to) bring that possible person into existence. But this moral reason is, of course, by no means decisive. It might be overruled by other moral reasons pointing in the opposite direction, e.g. the reasons provided by any kind of pain experienced by the possible person, in case he/she is given life.
This latter observation is important, because it means that Benatar's substantive conclusions might be correct even if we reject his claims about the alleged asymmetry. It might be the case that most, or even all, lives as a matter of fact contain more bad than can be compensated for by the actual amount of good in those lives, and exactly this view, a kind of fall back position, is what Benatar defends in the most interesting chapter of the book (chapter 3). Drawing on empirical research in social psychology, Benatar builds a strong argument to the effect that people are unreliable judges when assessing the quality of their own lives. He proceeds to show, in my opinion rather convincingly, that the quality of most people's lives is actually very bad, and that this is the case whether one adopts a hedonistic, a preference-theoretical, or an objective account of the nature of "the Good". Whether we like it or not, we do have many moral reasons, certainly more than most people realize, to STOP bringing new people into existence. Anyone who thinks that these reasons can be trumped by moral reasons for procreation has a big philosophical task on his/her hands.
Generally, the book is an easy read, thanks to the clarity of Benatar's exposition of the problems, the theories, and the arguments presented. One important upside of this is that readers without an education in philosophy should be able to learn a lot from Benatar's stimulating discussion. Unfortunately, not many will. Benatar is under no illusions that his readers will accept his stance or at least consider his arguments without much prejudice. This is a pity, because neither dubious appeals to common sense nor unfair arguments ad hominem will make Benatar's arguments bad and his conclusions false, contrary to what some of this book's reviewers seem to be thinking. Just as reciting the Lord's Prayer cannot refute Atheism, a rational refutation of Benatar, if possible, must be based on some serious philosophical work.
Lest wishful thinking should completely guide our actions and determine our conception of morality, philosophy should always challenge our most fundamental assumptions, and it should do so rationally, honestly, without self-deception or fear of the truth. In this work Benatar satisfies these desiderata, and that is why "Better Never to Have Been" merits attention. It deserves to be read and thought about carefully and with an open mind, and it deserves to be discussed in a serious, fair and intelligent manner. It is a very important book.
|
|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
One of the most important books ever written, October 13, 2009
I am writing this review in order to dilute the reviews by the religious people who attack Benatar and his life instead of his actual arguments, you know the girly way out. Not one of his arguments was counter argued. Why? Because it is impossible to counter-argue his arguments in any real sense. But you know they aren't really attacking Benatar, they are defending themselves, or rather their huge egos. When they hear about the population control, they immediately bring up their supposed "right" to have as many kids as they can, and no, you DON'T have that right, you don't have the right to give birth to children when you can't even afford paying for rent, you can't have 10 kids and see 8 of them die of malnutrition while you believe that their souls are going to fly up to heaven and stay toddlers for the rest of eternity or be reincarnated into another child (and since there are more people every minute then where do these knew reincarnated souls are coming from?). What you have is a RESPONSIBILITY to your unborn children and to the civilization in general. The world is messed up because stupid ignorant and evil people are able to get away with overpopulating themselves, limiting the general availability of resources on the planet and living in total and utter crap-holes while believing that everything is going to be okay eventually and they will all spend an eternity with god and not get bored of existing after 500 trillion years in Heaven. But I don't want to get caught up in arguing the religious non-sense.
But that's the thing, the only real "argument" that you can make against Benatar is by saying that god said to us: "be fruitful and multiply" - apparently god didn't know that he had created a limited biosphere that would not be able to support 15 billion people or ever 4 billion people for that matter. So do we HAVE to get religion out of the way first to push Benatar's argument? and it does not necessarily mean whether we should follow Benatar's argument or not, what's important to do FIRST is to see where he is right or not or whether he is MOST LIKELY right or not. The rest of the decision should come later on. It's not about what makes us good or not, it's about what the truth is, and if you can't accept the truth, if you can't handle the truth, if you see the ugly truth in the back of your head but you immediately veil that with Jeebus then just write a one sentence review on this book by giving it one star and saying the following: "I don't like the message that the messenger brings and I don't like the messenger for bringing it up in the first place and I don't like his nose and I don't like him making a hole in my faith, therefore I would like to prevent others from reading this book by decreasing its market value"
What's interesting is that Benatar barely even touches the subject of religion in his book, he expects the readers to deal with the fact that the default assumption is that what follows death is exactly what precedes birth, total oblivion. Why would there be anything different than that outcome? well that is where Jeebus comes in and what is where people who are just blatanly afraid of death and non-existence come in, because THAT is the what lies at the core of it. That's why they are afraid of reality, that's why they are afraid of being a mortal human being, that's why they are afraid to accept the fact that we are nothing but the extravagant product of 4 billion years of evolution and 2 billion years of animals eating each other for no good reason whatsoever.
Here is a simple equation that I could think of before I even heard of Benatar's book:
existence = possibly good life (good) non-existence = no possibility of good life (-) neutral position
existence = possibly bad life (bad) non-existence = no possibility of bad life (good)
so you can see, that mathematically, (without involving subjective feelings or biases), it makes more sense to not exist because you would be able to avoid the most important thing in this universe - the ABILITY TO BE HARMED
and I'm not just talking about good or bad, like they teach us in kindergarten, I'm talking about cancer-bad, starving to death-bad, losing your family-bad, seeing your parents die-bad, seeing your children die-bad, being maimed-bad, living for 20 years in a nursery home-not-knowing-who-you-are-BAD
And the good life mentioned above in the equation should REALLY BE good, if the equation is to make sense. the good life with as less possibly harm as possible, which not even Bill Gates is immune from. By the way, I wonder if Bill Gates is going to hell, after all he is an atheist, even though he has donated hundreds of millions of dollars into Africa, which in turn actually only compelled people to make more children and inject more harm into the world, yup... I think he is going to hell
Right now, there is a zillion of unborn people floating around in ether, in the non-existia, waiting to be born, SCREAMING in agony and cursing us for not bringing them here for 60-70 odd years(if they're lucky, and then dying peacefully, maybe), scoffing young couples who should be having sex RIGHT NOW and starting new lives instead of wasting the precious sperm. So obviously we all should be doing our utmost to work together and bring as many poor unborn children into this world, right? tell me if that makes any sense.
I can almost understand or even respect someone who openly says that they are unhappy, they have an ego, they want to perpetuate their genes and their last names, that they want to have unconditional love by having a child or children, who will in turn make THEM happy and take care of them when they are old. By why should our unfortunate predicaments compel others to work for us, others who might actually tell us that they'd rather not be born at all. Others who have done NOTHING to deserve living on this planet, except being a possible part of us in some remote future.
Why is it rational to have children? to be entertained by YOUR children? to work harder for YOUR children who don't even NEED to exist. Quality of life should always be above quantity. We could have 10 billion people tomorrow or in 9 months rather if we all have sex with each other, we can ALWAYS do that. But what CAN we do to improve of life already living on this planet? I can tell you that you will not be able to do that, unless you make damn sure that your child is going to be a vegetarian, hippy doctor who is going to save people in Africa or Bangladesh. But then again, why would you compel someone to do that when they don't even exist? Otherwise, it is most likely that your child will be cute for the first few years (awww, aren't they all?) then start going to school when they don't want to, hit puberty, talk back to you, survive puberty without getting pregnant or getting someone else pregnant, then work for most of your lives, then see you die and then die themselves, and no, you won't be seeing each other in heaven, since there isn't one; if you still think you are, I don't know why you are still reading this. Your child is most likely going to be a meat-eater, which will only increase the amount of suffering in the world. We already slaughter billions of animals who live in crappy conditions every year for our debauchery, ignorance and self-interest. So don't be talking about the sanctity of life when you openly rip the flesh off of dead animals. Even if you bought the meat, you still are a consumer and thus a contributor to the slaughter. So why not adopt? why not save a life which will be devoured by the African rebel militia tomorrow or be drowned by the flood in Bangladesh, instead of unnecessarily creating a new life? why not be a vegetarian? which isn't really a whole other subject
It's another thing to argue that we have been programed by nature and crude evolutionary forces to have children, but that should not mean that we should not use our brains and outsmart nature when possible. Nature doesn't care about you, it only cares about your copy, that's why we have been designed to grow old die - to make way for your offspring, who will in turn repeat the same game thousands of years if not millions. Our ancestors been doing this successfully for quite a long time now. Nature never cared about you. We are born alone, scared and naked, in a world filled with things that can destroy us any minute. A sunset is subjectively beautiful, a green field is subjectively beautiful, but zoom into that field and you will see insects devouring each other. A lion is beautiful, a zebra is beautiful ----you get the rest. Is the symmetrical cancer virus beautiful? Hmm, why would god create that one, or what about lice? I think we could do without lice, polio, black plague, Spanish flu, etc... The fact is that what's subjectively beautiful should not be the argument here.
This whole thing isn't hard to figure out if you just take an unbiased look at reality. You have to filter your previous misconceptions, your present conceptions, your wants, desires and feelings of self-importance. That way you will see reality for what it is, hopefully. And once you THAT, once you admit that we use our brains and scheming tools to manage reality and make our way in life, once you realize that you at the core are a selfish being, once you realize that you favor your OWN ethnicity that's why you most likely marry your ethnicity, once you realize that you have been fed that this life was worth living all along all your life instead of being told how bad it is for most people on the planet, once you realize that if there is something good to write on your tombstone like "this person made the world a better place with his or her existence", once you realize that living a happy life is different from living a...
Read more ›
|
|
|
1 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Too bad he wasn't born Pat Benatar., September 19, 2009
His "best shot" might have been a little better.
Benatar attempts to raise a lot of questions, but the one he raises most effectively is: Why would anyone pay $44 to read a protracted whine about how life contains so much "unpleasantness".
Just existing is so unpleasant that life is a net evil, says Benatar. Well, David, if you thought that the world was designed to provide you a cradle-to-grave Slip 'n' Slide, I can understand your disappointment. You should have saved yourself a lot of effort and grasped M. Scott Peck before you invested all that time writing 455 Reasons To Be Suicidally Depressed.
Or better yet, grapple with Dorothy Sayers' Mind of the Maker. Her book treats this question, and she explains people like David "Why wasn't I born Pat?" Benatar. According to Sayers, biological life is God's gift to everyone who had the terrible misfortune to come into existence. It's not a day at Disney World (thank You, Lord!) but an opportunity to become real and eternal, at considerable cost to God, and to you. There is a price to be paid.
There is something in each of us that share's Benatar's whine. Most people do not wish to be free, or real, or eternal. They just wish to eat a few Twinkies and die, slipping back into non-being. That tendency is what the ancients called Sloth. God offers something truly horrifying; He reaches out to those with biological life and says, "Take My hand. Let me lift you up out the clinging primordial slime and grow to be Man. It will cost you; there is great pain to be borne, your heart must be broken over and over, like Mine. But in the end, you will be able to care about something besides your tiny inconsequential self. You will become not only human and mortal, but divine and eternal. You will know Joy."
But most people choose not to take that Hand. It's too much work, it hurts too much, it's too scary. All things considered, it's just too "unpleasant".
I'm sorry, Mr. Benatar, but this fleeting life is not about Having a Good Time.
David Benatar could have chosen to bear the pain of Eternity, but instead he finds meaning in trying to persuade other people that their own lives are meaningless. There's something illogical and perverse about that.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Julian Savulescu
by Jesse Prinz
by Charles Taliaferro
See all 55 books this book cites
