Customer Reviews

Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.

Applied Ethics. Very argumentative. Benatar has caused turmoil in some philosophical circles. He's been read by people in Cambridge, Oxford, Princeton and other great knowledge centers. His ideas are indeed a threat to many of our naive assumptions. He criticizes common moral conclusions using premises that are generally accepted. He assumes for example that the reader agrees that:

1) it is wrong to bring someone into the world if that is going to cause that person too much pain.

e.g. If you are sure that person is going to have AIDS or live in extreme poverty, so that she will suffer an immensely excruciating pain.

He, then, argues that:

2) All lives, even the best ones are very bad. So you know, for sure, that by bringing someone to life, that person is going to suffer so much pain. Far more than pleasure.

3) Therefore, it is wrong to procreate.

Further conclusions:

In this line of thought, abortion, for instance, in the early stages of pregnancy is not only right, but morally mandatory. In addition, he establishes a very important difference between "lives worth continuing" and "lives worth starting", arguing that we are not morally obliged to kill ourselves. Absolutely not. But since by bringing someone into life I will expose this person to serious harm, it is best not to bring anyone into life.

Arguments to defend 2:

1) Pleasures and the hedonistic project are condemned to defeat, since any pleasures you have will not be able to undo the pain you will necessarily suffer.

2) Pain is part of the structure of the world and by bringing someone into life you are, ipso facto, exposing that person to serious harm. We entirely overlook the daily discomforts of daily life, even though they are so pervasive. Even the best lives are very bad, because our pleasures or moments of desire fulfillment are so few compared to the common negative states we constantly experience everyday. And this, in a healthy common life, not to say someone who has a terminal disease or something worse.

3) Happiness is but a temporary absence of suffering, satisfaction is the ephemeral fulfillment of desire.

e.g. After one has eaten or taken liquid, bowel and bladder discomfort ensues quite naturally and we have to seek relief. There are moments or even periods of satisfaction, but they occur against a background of dissatisfied striving.

All that said, if you had never existed, you would not feel pain, nor die everyday, constantly, bit by bit. Therefore, someone who hasn't been brought to life, who technically isn't even a person yet, is in clear advantage to someone who came into being. Ergo, it is wrong to bring someone to life.

I believe this book will become a philosophical classic, probably not as much as Nagel's Mortal Questions, but perhaps something close to it. He's certainly an author I liked to read. His book is very clear. It is important to mention that he does not assume prior philosophical knowledge from the reader and that the book is very concise.

I highly recommend it.

Insightful, intelligent, and honest. This book is the handiwork of a true libertarian and is the definitive work on the subject of antinatalism thus far. It can be somewhat tedious at times. However, due to the nature of the subject matter and the magnitude of the possible outcomes (vast amounts of harm), repetition of the message is necessary.

Dr. Benatar successfully (in my opinion) exposes the true nature of the human ego and reveals it as veiled megalomania. Human beings seem to have cold indifference to those they "love", treating them as possessions and mere means rather than as sovereign individuals... and this phenomenon extends to non-humans as well. This book is a wonderful read if you are already seasoned in philosophy, or just starting out.

Remember to push your ego aside when you read this book. Do not simply dismiss it on an emotional whim.

"If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence? Or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood." Arthur Schopenhauer

A devastating critique of people's intuitive feeling that bearing children is a morally unproblematic enterprise. Never shrill or hasty in reaching his conclusions, Professor Benatar calmly and systematically lays out his arguments and anticipates and reacts to all feasible counter arguments in a manner that suggests he ruminated on these issues for a considerable amount of time and with a clarity of thought that is lacking in most people's ideas about these highly important issues. He never resorts to appeals to emotion or ad-hominim attacks (as many of his opponents seem to do) and he uses no red herrings or other intellectual sleights of hand in order to lend credence to his views. The thrust of his argument is that as:

i) non-existent people are not deprived of the goods in life (happiness, joy, elation et cetera)

ii) non-existent people never suffer or feel any distress and

iii) even the most charmed of lives contain inevitable degrees of pain and suffering

there is an imbalance between the value of being born as opposed to the value of never having come into existence. As long as you accept the three premises above (and Benatar provides more than ample reasons for doing so) one is inexorably led to the conclusion that life confers no advantage over non-existence whilst non-existence DOES confer an advantage over existence. My hat off to you, Mr Benatar sir, this should be compulsory reading for every school student in the world! But of course his compassionate words of wisdom will fall on deaf ears for the most part...."Why don't you off yourself if life is so bad you pessimistic weirdo" the less eloquently spoken rabble might inquire of Benatar. However, making this kind of attack would be to really miss the point of his argument. Would you like me to elaborate? If so, I cordially invite you to read this seminal work and see where his arguments take you. 5 stars!

Seldom will you find a philosopher who can write this well for laypersons with the courage to advance such a counterintuitive thesis. While people may find Benatar's conclusion repugnant (i.e. coming into existence is always a harm and extinction of the human race should be desired end), it is exceedingly difficult to find any flaw in his logic. This is a great piece of work and philosphically sound. While it may have been better that Benatar had never been, I am sure glad that he is being.

Anyone considering creating new people would do well to read this book. If you are still under the impression (generated by your animal constitution and buttressed by family/social/cultic influences) that procreation is a morally unproblematic enterprise, this book will provide you with a decent presentation of some of the problems with that instinctual/inherited view.

As with any book/product reviews, don't pay much attention to reviewers who clearly haven't read the book, but are simply responding instinctively to the title.

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 truly productive life, once you realize that we have no free will but act in the accordance of the cause-and-effect principle, then everything I wrote above might actually trigger a certain chemical reaction in your brain if it hasn't already which will compel you to think about this whole thing many times over. Once you do all THAT, only THEN can you know what the problems are and how to fix them, you won't be able to fix them (given that you want to) by running away from them or creating new problems that should not even need to exist.

I'm gonna throw in a little bonus. Especially for those who think bad of me or who want to try to counter-argue me, I'm gonna help you out a bit.

For those who want to attack my character or depression - irrelevant to the argument. But for the record, I'm not depressed, I don't even know the feeling of depression. Whether I should crawl under a rock and die is again irrelevant to the argument. Whether I am in fact 22 or whether I could be 48 is irrelevant to the argument. Whether something really bad happened to me in my life is - irrelevant to the argument, something bad doesn't need to happen to ME for me to see the problems in this world. Whether I should be ashamed or concerned about your hurt feelings is - irrelevant to the argument. Whether I believed in god at some point is - irrelevant to the argument. Whether I am an actual person typing this or an unbiased computer software is - irrelevant to the argument. Whether I actually practice what I preach is - irrelevant for the argument, but for the record, yes I do. Whether I should be more patient or kind to the religious people who are uncontrollably reproducing - irrelevant to the argument. Whether I should stfu, mind my own business and not "tell people what to do" - irrelevant to the DAMN ARGUMENT. Whether I am a thick-glass geek or/and internet whiner or loser - irrelevant to the argument. Whether lots of girls get turned off when you tell them that you don't want kids - yeah, that's true.

There is a price for our existence, nothing is free in this world, except cheese in the mousetrap. If we don't pay for something, someone else does. If you win the first prize, someone else doesn't. You can all go back to your relatively short and pointless cheese chasing game now, but be warned, you will never get the cheese. We are insatiable, selfish, hungry and horny mice, designed to eat, crap, want, screw, and die, any add-on is just spirituality or religion, void of any productive or intellectual value. We can either limit the price of our existence by becoming humane peaceful beings, or we can all go down in flames, like the selfish beasties that we are.

The book is incredibly well written. It is at times a tough read. The level of comprehension must be high to understand what David is writing. This is not meant for high school educated students.

So this is where the philosophic mindset of Western man has finally landed, this slimy abyss where the tired sloth Reason dips his feet and smiles, overjoyed that he has finally stumbled upon the peak of human knowledge. It is sad too, I think, because I thought mankind was really going to triumph over the sense of meaningless that suffused his world when his kindly grandpa in the sky was put to rest. Oh well, you all had a fun ride didn't you. There were laughs and chills and thrills....lots of tears though, I'm not going to deny that. LOTS of tears. And that's the rub isn't it.

Well I like to think along with Nietzsche that man can never stamp a value upon life, not a living man, because he is a party to the dispute, indeed its object, and not the judge of it. Each time this man makes a value judgment about the entirety of existence I sense an ant crawling upon the Mona Lisa; the little sees the centimeter of the art upon which he crawls, reflects upon it, and deems the whole of it unworthy. Perhaps he's right. You all seem to agree with him anyways.

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.