Harm of Existence

I recently stumbled upon a book by the professor who is the head of the Philosophy Department at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. It's been out since 2006, and hasn't gotten much besides controversy.

The basic premise is this: being born creates more incredibly more harm than not existing, and therefore being born is a negative value judgment. Procreation is thus, from this moral conclusion, an immoral act.

Before you recoil or dismiss this, think about this: he is not saying people HAVE to stop procreation. He is just saying they are inflicting a painful birth and an inevitable death along with all the pain inbetween which always outweighs that which is pleasant upon the offspring. Therefore, if one is to be truly moral, one would avoid this. Nonexistence to Benatar makes more sense than existence.

Also note that he is NOT advocating suicide, and just because he thinks nonexistence is logically more sound than existence.

Do you think there is truth to this argument?

I'd disagree and say that it is better to exist and have pain then to not exist at all. Pain is a natural part of life, and it is important in giving us free will and the ability to comprehend what is good. The bad makes the good feel more satisfying, and it gives our lives meaning to live. If you don't exist, you can't experience the good this existence can offer.

The way I can see it is that we're here. There's not really anything we can do about that (besides the obvious which I won't even state as an option). We might as well make the best out of it then, despite the obvious pain and suffering that's in our lives. If you live your entire life focusing on nothing but your own despair and pain, well then you've wasted a perfectly good life. I won't say the author was wrong, but I can't honestly say that I think he was right either.

Originally Posted by sage_of_fire

The way I can see it is that we're here. There's not really anything we can do about that (besides the obvious which I won't even state as an option). We might as well make the best out of it then, despite the obvious pain and suffering that's in our lives. If you live your entire life focusing on nothing but your own despair and pain, well then you've wasted a perfectly good life. I won't say the author was wrong, but I can't honestly say that I think he was right either.

He never said to just focus on nothing but despair and pain. He argues that there is an asymmetry between human emotions and that pain is more prevalent, therefore it is immoral for parents to bring children into existence because then they suffer a ton with a little good coming from it. So, it's not telling you how to live. He acknowledges people have actually every good evolutionary reason to procreate because that is the primary goal of evolution. Which is why people recoil from the idea a lot because they don't like it. We are genetically predispositioned (but not entirely bound) to this optimism of life being worth it, when we end up suffering more than enjoying. This is why depression is considered a disease, because not wanting to live is considered unhealthy.

Originally Posted by Dread

I'd disagree and say that it is better to exist and have pain then to not exist at all. Pain is a natural part of life, and it is important in giving us free will and the ability to comprehend what is good. The bad makes the good feel more satisfying, and it gives our lives meaning to live. If you don't exist, you can't experience the good this existence can offer.

Good and bad don't matter if you don't exist, and good and bad don't give meaning...They just give you pleasure or pain of various sorts. Each one is fleeting, so I don't know how that reasons out. Are you arguing from a perspective that things are designed for humans instead of the other way around?

I think that the argument is more than flimsy, as we can't really attribute a positive or negative value upon nothingness, or not existing. It's something beyond experience. Naturally the value that we place upon existence is arbitrary from the beggining, yet the same is true for the opposite. The question itself also seems slightly irrelevant considering the fact that if we never existed, we are only allowed one side of the coin, whereas if we lived and died, we 'experience' or are permitted both options. To exist and then not exist.

Originally Posted by Trap Master

He never said to just focus on nothing but despair and pain. He argues that there is an asymmetry between human emotions and that pain is more prevalent, therefore it is immoral for parents to bring children into existence because then they suffer a ton with a little good coming from it. So, it's not telling you how to live. He acknowledges people have actually every good evolutionary reason to procreate because that is the primary goal of evolution. Which is why people recoil from the idea a lot because they don't like it. We are genetically predispositioned (but not entirely bound) to this optimism of life being worth it, when we end up suffering more than enjoying. This is why depression is considered a disease, because not wanting to live is considered unhealthy.





Good and bad don't matter if you don't exist, and good and bad don't give meaning...They just give you pleasure or pain of various sorts. Each one is fleeting, so I don't know how that reasons out. Are you arguing from a perspective that things are designed for humans instead of the other way around?

Sound reasoning. But let me put it like this. Take your everyday average Joe and start his day. Early in the morning he slices his finger open and bleeds all over breakfast. Later that day, he helps a kitten out of a tree. Now, which one of those events will he remember most clearly or even at all? It's human nature to focus on the negative because we're always trying to find a way to make it a positive.

This whole arguement of his falls on one very large assumption. That feeling pain/being harmed is immoral.

Before you can even begin to talk about what is Moral and Immoral, you need to explain what is moral/good/right and what is immoral/bad/wrong. And more importantly why.

Why is it wrong to go through the pain of life? And after you answer these questions you need to ask, is what he is saying actually sound logic? Maybe feeling pain in certain situations leads to pleasure, the same way pleasure can lead to pain.

Here is one example that i want to give to you to critique:
A mother goes through extreme pain, and almost loses her life giving birth to her first child. Isn't the pain she went through worth it for the undeniable pleasure/happyness she will recieve over her life from her daughter/son?

You need to be able answer these somewhat abstract questions to defend such a position in which your whole logic relies on pain/harm being immoral.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

Why is it wrong to go through the pain of life?

He is saying that it is wrong to force a child into an existence of inevitable pain.

(And not that the child is doing any wrong in receiving the pain.)

I'm sorry, but this the one of the most illogical theories I've ever come across. Even if you have the most traumatic life in the history of mankind, that is still better than not being born. Furthermore, you can't predict what a child's life will be like. They may have a very happy life; you can't just assume that because they exist their life will only be filled with pain.

wouldn't not being born be the greatest pain of all. I know it seems illogical but I thoroughly believe that life itself is a trial that we must pass before we are granted peace. Those who try to take the easy way out(i won't say the word but you know what it means) are deemed unworthy and are sentenced to eternal torment. Those who merely succumb to greed and evil fail the trial and are also sentenced to eternal torment. Those who live life to its fullest and work as hard as possible to do the right thing and help others pass on to life in eternal peace.

Therefore I don't see why the pain and suffering of life should be a bad thing because like some people have said it's a part of life.

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

He is saying that it is wrong to force a child into an existence of inevitable pain.

(And not that the child is doing any wrong in receiving the pain.)

Existing will inevitably bring pain and suffering, but I'd say that most of us don't like the idea of our parents choosing not to have us because our lives would have some ♥♥♥♥ty moments in it. We want to exist regardless of what pain it might bring. It's akin to assisted suicide. If a person of sound mind who has a legitimate reason for wanting to die such as being diagnosed with terminal cancer asks to be killed is it immoral to end his life?

john: God that's a tough question. I mean most religions are against suicide but...wow that's tough to answer.

Originally Posted by John Henry Eden

Existing will inevitably bring pain and suffering, but I'd say that most of us don't like the idea of our parents choosing not to have us because our lives would have some ♥♥♥♥ty moments in it. We want to exist regardless of what pain it might bring. It's akin to assisted suicide. If a person of sound mind who has a legitimate reason for wanting to die such as being diagnosed with terminal cancer asks to be killed is it immoral to end his life?

God I hate that question. Mercy kill...in my book it's still killing. Killing anything with a life is wrong to me. However, in that situation, if it's someone I know, someone I love, I'm honestly not sure what my decision would be. This pondering and the "pull the plug" one are two that I just can't figure out as well as I would like.

Originally Posted by Trap Master

He argues that there is an asymmetry between human emotions and that pain is more prevalent, therefore it is immoral for parents to bring children into existence because then they suffer a ton with a little good coming from it.

I'd like to see how he comes to the conclusion that "pain is more prevalent," how "prevalent" is defined, and how he reconciles with the opposite point. Namely, that for every child X that could exist (but we choose to not procreate, or not as often) there is a possibility that they would choose to be born despite whatever pain life entails.

Originally Posted by attackʞɔɐʇʇɐ

I'm sorry, but this the one of the most illogical theories I've ever come across. Even if you have the most traumatic life in the history of mankind, that is still better than not being born. Furthermore, you can't predict what a child's life will be like. They may have a very happy life; you can't just assume that because they exist their life will only be filled with pain.

No, I would disagree the most traumatic life would NOT be better than never being born. Think about it. If you are never born, you never suffer, and you never know that living is good or bad, and you don't feel like you are missing out on anything. You don't exist.

And he considers it immoral to have a child exactly because you cannot predict anything in their life for sure: to have a child anyway is reckless, considering you already know for sure all human lives have the ♥♥♥♥ty aspect.

Originally Posted by Drew

I'd like to see how he comes to the conclusion that "pain is more prevalent," how "prevalent" is defined, and how he reconciles with the opposite point. Namely, that for every child X that could exist (but we choose to not procreate, or not as often) there is a possibility that they would choose to be born despite whatever pain life entails.

I'm gonna have to read more of this book before I can say how he quantifies this, but I thought the main idea itself was a good idea for some original discussion.

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

He is saying that it is wrong to force a child into an existence of inevitable pain.

(And not that the child is doing any wrong in receiving the pain.)

But his argument still revolves around pain. Why is it wrong to force pain upon a child?

Why?

Why is pain wrong/bad?

Whether or not it is or not, doesn't matter at this stage, he still needs to justify the basics of his argument. To prove how sound his logic is.

There are many arguments for pain/harm being good.

One more point: Does the fact that the majority of the world is happy/can find happiness, inspite of this harm/pain matter to your argument?

Because many people go through stages of difficulty with varying degrees of pain/harm upon them and are still happy.

I think this debate is sometimes at the base of many couples' decisions to have or not have children, these days. "I don't want to bring a child into such a cruel world" is a fairly common statement from people who don't want to have children, and I think there is a point to it - as Sartre would say, in existing, we are condemned to be free, and to face the existential problem of how to live our lives and deal with whatever things may face us, good or bad. It's certainly not uncommon for people to crumble under such pressure.

As for the mentioned immorality of having a child, though, I'm not so sure I'd say that's agreeable. The decision to have a child is something that occurs when the begin is nonexistent; decisions, which are existent, cannot be applicable to nonexistent things. Of course, every decision made after conception (or birth, or whenever you want to say that life begins) should fall under moral scrutiny. That's not to say that you couldn't judge a couple based upon their own circumstances - for example, to have a child in a family that cannot support it economically is something I would say is to some degree immoral. However, I don't find the proposed argument to be compelling in and of itself, without contingencies.

Originally Posted by John Henry Eden

If a person of sound mind who has a legitimate reason for wanting to die such as being diagnosed with terminal cancer asks to be killed is it immoral to end his life?

It's immoral not to in my opinion.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

But his argument still revolves around pain. Why is it wrong to force pain upon a child?

Why?

Why is pain wrong/bad?

Would it be fine for people (especially governments) to use your reasoning as a justification to not fund charities?

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

It's immoral not to in my opinion.




Would it be fine for people (especially governments) to use your reasoning as a justification to not fund charities?

Governments all seem to follow either secular humanism, or religious moral ideals.

Australia for instance is a Christian country and thus follows for or Christianity's ideals.

Other countries take religion out of the picture and follow secular humanism.

Research these moral philosophies, if you are confused. But this philosophical stance about the immorality of giving life to children is exactly that. A philosophical one, and i have asked him to justify his logic.

Further more i can't see how your statement relates to anything at all. I simply asked for justification.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

Further more i can't see how your statement relates to anything at all. I simply asked for justification.

Our societies fund charities to enrich the welfare of unfortunate people. For example, some charities give food and shelter to people who can't afford food and/or shelter. Well, why would one wish to give another food/shelter who can't afford food/shelter you might ask? Well, if one did not, then that person would suffer (i.e: experience pain).

However, if society adopted the philosophy that you are presenting, then society could justify not funding charities using the argument: "pain/suffering isn't necessarily bad".

So is that the kind of world you would like to live in? Is that a "good" world or a "bad" world? You decide.