Rene Lopez asks:
Are there any good arguments against David Benatar’s antinatalism?
Answer By Craig Skinner
I dont think so. Benatar’s arguments in his book Better Never To Have Been (OUP 2009) are convincing.
His thesis is that a world without sentient beings (or no world at all) would be better than the actual world.
He has two arguments:
1. The vale of tears argument.
2. The asymmetry argument.
- The vale of tears view says that we humans are natural born reproducers and optimists (adaptive evolved traits). We overestimate the joys of life as compared with the sorrows, keep having children and hoping for better things for them, whereas an impartial assessment of how things really are for humans and other sentient creatures, will conclude that, whilst transient joys occur for most of us, and more joy for some of us, overall the balance is suffering.
- The asymmetry argument says that a world without sentient beings prevents both suffering and joy, but, whereas avoidance of suffering is a good thing FULL STOP, prevention of joy is not a bad thing because nobody exists to be deprived of it.
Of course, even if it would have been better for me never to have been born, it doesnt follow, now I do exist, that suicide would be best. A nonexistent person has no interests, rights or agenda, whilst an existent one has, and usually wants to live and make the best of it. Hence, Benatar recommends planned extinction of humanity by birth control. I doubt it will ever catch on, but unplanned extinction is a distinct long term possibility.
Meantime, driven by my evolved biases, and aware that although the Grim Reaper isnt quite knocking on my door, he may be lurking in the shrubbery, I best close and get on with living.
2 thoughts on “Better never to have been”
But what if someone want to have kids? Do you want kids?
thanks for the reply!