The Predicament of Existence - David Benatar on Anti-Natalism

[@kartik9892]

The one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of children is not to bring them into this world of diseases, crimes, wars, accidents, natural disasters, old age, death, and all the unknown evils the future holds. ☮ At the same time, it's not a bad for them to not come into existence as those who don't exist can't suffer their own non-existence. Any of the "goods" this world has to offer, the non-existent don't need them to begin with. ✨

[@ajay4319]

I like how the interviewer says in the end to David, "I'm glad that you are in existence"

[@aJrenalin1]

Benatar taught me applied ethics in my undergraduate and he would sometimes say something like this as a compliment, something like “while I’m terribly sorry you had to come into existence I’m very glad that you do in fact exist”.

[@Sealust50]

. . . But only considering the fact that nobody had a choice to exist or not from the very beginning

[@galaxyn3214]

"Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? And can you admit the idea that men for whom you are building it would agree to accept their happiness on the foundation of the unexpiated blood of a little victim?" - Ivan Karamazov

[@MostafaElSakari]

Yeah of course I would!

[@sunwukong6917]

@@galaxyn3214 as a creator definitely I would be guilty. I love that novel .

[@adamborowicz7209]

@@MostafaElSakari then you are a monster

[@pavelhanek9790]

What year is this interview from?

[@aJrenalin1]

According to the description 2022

[@calmhorizons]

In summary. Suffering is inevitable if and only if you come into existence. If you do not come into existence neither suffering nor non-suffering is possible. Therefore, it is better never to have been, all else being equal. --- It would be interesting to imagine a world with living creatures that have no sentience OR a type of sentience that did not evolve, and therefore cannot suffer as designed (some sort of AI perhaps). Those are probably the defeaters to anti-natalism. Create creatures that do not know they exist, or creatures that cannot suffer.

[@671021748]

Benatar is a deep thinker

[@harveymurdoch9590]

Is this a subgenre of general pessimism? I recall Chomsky saying something along the lines of: "The problem with discussions of free will is that even the people that say they don't believe in it still act as if they do."

[@calmhorizons]

It is more like an application of existentialism nihilism.

[@Circle-247]

It is philosophical pessimism, yes. I wouldn't call it nihilism because nihilism is simply the refutation that existence can offer us anything resembling the meaning we crave - it doesn't draw any conclusions aside from this. The pessimist's credo is that existence hurts everyone while non-existence harms no one. A nihilist would not even make the distinction.

[@adamborowicz7209]

@@Circle-247 you can certainly be both (nihilist and pessimist)

[@Circle-247]

@@adamborowicz7209 You may be right - I tend to assume that the pessimist point of view is a position of despair while the nihilist one is a position of indifference.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

A being that does not yet exist has nothing to lose, for he does not possess anything because he does not exist in the first-place.

[@sunwukong6917]

If you'd ask Schopenhauer if life is worth living he would say "No", if you ask Nietzsche the same question he would say "Whose life ?" ....every philosophy is a confession. To say life is worth it or not it's nothing more but the confession of that particular individual's life, hidden as an statement of "all life".

[@aJrenalin1]

Yes. Benatar is very open about his antinatalism being global in this way. He genuinely believes that no life, even the best life, isn’t worth starting.

[@grubyjanusz4517]

​@@aJrenalin1 yeah, I was thinking about that and the pain of (mine) existence is really troublesome but not coming alive at all? I don't regret that

[@sunwukong6917]

@@aJrenalin1 I think his psychological state reflects only his view on the only life he got to experience which was his own and he could be right his life maybe was not worth all the pain. But humans cannot make value judgements on life in general without expressing their particular confession of that particular individual's life. If he was Brad Pitt his view on the value of "life in general" would be optimistic.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

The real question is, what values exist apart from life itself ? When we ask, "Is it worth it ?", we are asking, what is the exchange required for it? What are we giving-up in order to live ? There might be some value in death on the side of the living, but there is no value in life on the side of the dead. This is because the dead -- supposing they are really dead, of course, and not living some metaphysical or supernatural afterlife -- cannot possibly value anything whatsoever. There might be some value in death for a living man who is in inescapable pain and suffering, but only so long as he is still alive. Once he is dead, this value no longer exists for him because he no longer exists. Now, when we ask, "Was his life worth it?" we are asking, what did he give-up in order to live ? But obviously he did not give-up anything prior to living because he did not yet exist. Then the real cost of his life was the pain and suffering he endured during his lifetime. Now, here you are absolutely right, for how can you or I judge whether or not this price was too high for him ? If he was willing to pay it, then the price was right for him; and, if not, then it was too high for him. Those who pass judgment on the 'real value' of life in a wholesale manner pretend they have achieved some external seat of judgment (a God-like perch) beyond life itself. But, of course, no such external view exists for man -- he must always pass judgment within the confines of life, and, in particular, he can only pass judgment within the confines of his own individual life.

[@aJrenalin1]

@@sunwukong6917 you should try actually listening to his arguments. Not a single one of them rests on his own subjective reports of his own quality of life. This claim is so foreign to anything he comes close to saying that I have no idea how you could have listened to him and come up with such a bad misrepresentation of his argument. Did you actually listen to the piece? His main argument does not depend on the quality of anybody’s, the asymmetry doesn’t say that the pain (or the bad more generally) always outweighs the pleasure (or goods more generally). His contention is that the absence of pain is not bad unless it amounts to a deprivation but the absence of pleasure is good even if there is nobody to experience that absence. The conclusion here says nothing about the quality of anybody’s life. All it shows is that no life (even the best lives which are filled with inordinately more pleasure than pain) are not worth _starting._ He explains this in the discussion starting at 6:19. Seriously if you just engage with the man’s thought instead of imagining what he says you’ll learn that you drastically misunderstand what he’s saying.

[@kredit787]

Antinatalist argument logically valid: p1. Subjecting a person to pain is immoral. p2. Introducing a new person into existence subjects them to pain. c. Introducing a new person into existence is immoral.

[@henrywolf5332]

Not all pain is immoral, This presupposes pain as more important or definitive than pleasure. The term subjecting presupposes that people have no agency. Given this the conclusion does not follow.

[@aJrenalin1]

Valid yes, sound not obviously. it seems like there instances of pain which are perfectly moral to subject people to. vaccines hurt, but it's seemingly permissble to subject an adult or even child to a vaccine. a child might be hurt by being put in time out for misbehaving but that's not obviously immoral. There are much better arguments for antinatalism. you should watch the video.

[@kredit787]

@@aJrenalin1 Very good. Pain and pleasure in themselves are not good or bad. Tying them to morality or immorality is questionable.

[@eaaaaaaaaa4093]

Not all pleasure is moral. Not all pain is immoral.

[@rcourtri2]

The question is whether the premises are true or coherent. (1) Should we equate or strictly correlate sensory or emotional states with moral states? I would say "no". (2) A new person coming into existence might live a life characterized by more pleasure than suffering. Neither hedonism nor utilitarianism ever really formulated a way to quantify pleasure and suffering, so there isn't any way to determine or "score" our lives in terms of a net pleasure/suffering number. (3) Benatar seems to treat the question of existence in a reductive, simplistic way, purely in terms of the mitigation or elimination of negative transitory emotional/sensory states.

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

Antinatalism seems to be unassailable.

[@chrisv4472]

I've found that very many arguments against it are religious in nature, a la "be fruitful and prosper".

[@henrywolf5332]

There are you aren’t going to find anti Natalist invest from their pessimism as it is a justification for feeling. • Anti-natalism's framework dismisses the possibility of individuals finding purpose, beauty, or self-actualization in life. Anti-natalism often appeals to a kind of utilitarianism that prioritizes the reduction of suffering above all else. This overlooks utilitarian perspectives, like those of John Stuart Mill, that account for qualitative differences in experiences, suggesting that a life with both joy and suffering may be preferable to no life at all. Moreover, Mill argued that higher pleasures- intellectual, emotional, and spiritual-are often worth the hardships associated with them. Thus, a purely suffering-avoidant ethics oversimplifies the nuances of utilitarianism. By declaring life inherently "not worth beginning," anti-natalism finds itself in a paradox. If life and existence are devoid of inherent worth, then the moral value that anti-natalism assigns to non-existence is also suspect, since it would logically follow that no values are worth considering at all. This self-negating perspective undermines its own moral assertions, leading to a form of existential nihilism that deprives anti-natalism of a stable ethical foundation. Without a being to experience suffering, the moral weight of preventing suffering is tenuous. As Thomas Nagel and Derek Parfit argue, the interests of hypothetical persons are not ethically relevant in the same way as those of actual persons. Thus, the emphasis on protecting "non-existent" individuals fails to stand on solid moral ground.

[@sunwukong6917]

I think Leo DiCaprio life was probably worth experiencing nothing but pure bliss most likely.

[@aJrenalin1]

@@sunwukong6917 whether Leonardo de Caprio’s life is worth _experiencing_ isn’t the question at hand. The question at hand is whether or not his life is worth _starting._

[@sunwukong6917]

@aJrenalin1 I like when Nietzsche says that there is no judgement of value of "life in general" every philosophy is a personal confession... if David was DiCaprio he wouldn't be an anti natalist. He is anti natalist because he shields his real view by saying "no life is worth living " when he should honestly say "My own life isn't worth living ". And he may be right about his life. Maybe I also think my own life isn't worth the squeeze and I could be right . But also if I was DiCaprio I think I would love life even more and my views would change because I'd view "life in general" through my own perfect blissful life.

[@leb1]

How can “happiness is subjective” and a universal claim that the suffering of life outweighs the happiness both be true?

[@piano9433]

Very good point.

[@aJrenalin1]

The claim isn’t that suffering outweighs happiness. The asymmetry argument isn’t that there’s more suffering than happiness. It’s that the absence of happiness (or goods in general) aren’t bad unless they amount to a deprivation, but that the absence of pain (or bads in general) are good even if nobody who experiences that absence. Check out the discussion from 6:19 Also he never claims that happiness is subjective. In fact he actually argues that people's subjective reports of their own happiness are unreliable and that we have a psychological tendency to overreport how happy we are, the implication being that the average person is actually _less_ happy than they give themselves credit for. See the discussion from 14:19.

[@Danyel615]

​@@aJrenalin1 there was a time after Earth was created, on which it didn't have any life on it, and thus no life to experience any absence of pain. Would you say that at that point the world was fundamentally good? I'd say at that point the world was fundamentally neutral, neither good nor bad. I'm not sure what is the meaning of "bad" in the total abscence of conciousness. I'd say the abscence of pain is only bad if they amount to an enjoyment by something or someone.

[@aJrenalin1]

Yeah. I’d say the absence of pain is good. It’s a good thing that there’s no suffering. I’d also take it that it’s neutral that there’s no pleasure. That’s the asymmetry (or at least the most important part of it). As Benatar explains in the video. Without the asymmetry it becomes very difficult to explain the ordinary common beliefs about our other procreative duties. The asymmetry gives the best explanation for that. If you had a better explanation then that explains all those duties better then I’d have reason to change my mind. All you are doing here is denying the asymmetry. But you haven’t provided a reason to think we should deny it. Since it’s motivated on the abductive basis that it explains our other commonly agreed upon procreative duties better than any alternative a real criticism requires a _better_ moral explanation.

[@Danyel615]

@@aJrenalin1 I am denying the assymetry. I tried to come up with a few counterexamples to show that the logic doesn't work. I think if you apply it to money we can see it fails. If there is a banker that ows and lends money, he can have a net balance that is either positive or negative. Clearly the absence of owning money is not a loss, unless it amounts to a debt. But equally, the absence of loaners is not again, unless it amounts to a profit. Having less people loaning money from him will clearly increase his balance, but not beyond the zero mark. The assymetry's logic would say that before he oppened his bank, as there were no loaners, his balance must be necessarily positive. That's wrong. It could be zero of course.

[@NicolasSchaII]

I don't understand why one would give attention to this fringe position. It's just silly. Different parts of the brain light up for suffering and pleasure when you put someone in an MRI machine. We went over that decades ago, should be a closed argument.

[@adamborowicz7209]

you didnt gave us any argument to support you thesis about anti-natalism being "silly"

[@jagolago-bob]

If we have too many people on this planet, I hope more people become antinatalists, for their own happiness, and the happiness of non-antinatalists.

[@Danyel615]

Could we not use this same argument with debt? The absence of owning money is not bad unless it amounts to a depravation, but the absence of owing money is good regardless of whether there is someone to have the debt or not. Therefore, it is *immoral* for people to take credit at all. Seems absurd.

[@extendedclips]

Live and Let GOD. This was painful to listen to. Sounds like a proponent of Eugenics

[@_7.8.6]

30 seconds in 😂😂😂😂😂

[@Neti-Netti]

Very western thoughts and very neurotic

[@merlingeikie]

The gloom, doom and disaster, portrayed by commentators, results from an unhealthy or pathological state. This state is transmissible, powerful in effect on the human mind and tends to traumatic and nearly permanent. Transmissible psychiatric states occurr in much, and as part of social interaction. Placebo and nocebo effects are known, powerful and largely involve suggestion, a social interaction. The suggestion of our world being disastrous, doomed and irrevocably so, creates a gloomy reality. The suggestion that it is because of human cultural and household action, is paralysingly compounding of gloom, producing learned helplessness. This pathos is where we stand now. We are a victim of our own psychological machinations and it is intolerably mournful. A further complication is evident, the cult of victimology, a perverse congratulations to those who announce, most loudly, theit victimhood. The cycle thus reaffirms itself, becomes reified and the misery continues. ❤️🇦🇺🪃🙏🥷✅️

[@a___8___h]

If the “glass is half empty” was a person.

[@MostafaElSakari]

Correct

[@noshirm6285]

*AGREED!* 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@sjones1017]

I'll make sure to tell the child getting raped somewhere in this world as I type this that it's just all in their head; that the person who just lost an appendage due to a work accident or car crash should stop screaming in pain, someone might hear their "'victimhood'. But at least millions of people around the world don't face food insecurities if not outright starvation, just like no one is suffering from war, crime, disease, or natural disaster. But hey, we've got solutions, we're not helpless. For example, here in the United States, we put a known corrupt Nazi rapist into our nation's most powerful office...some say the most powerful office in the world. At least we don't have to worry about regression, however, because we're just awash in observable ethical behavior, right? Anyway, if I'm around when climate change really kicks, I'll just sing, "Always look on the bright side of life," because no material element can be a true source of suffering. You wanna know something; my life is actually pretty good, I'm grateful, and I'm privileged. But I have this problem with thinking about people other than just myself. Bottom line; life, at this stage, is unethical, and relying on toxic positivity to radically improve life globally ain't going to do the trick.

[@MostafaElSakari]

@@sjones1017 no offense but you sound deranged