@@trevagraham1605 The only problem is that cremation is so expensive. Not as expensive as funeral arrangements, but still thousands of dollars. It's sick and cruel that you can't even die in this world without it costing money. I don't want to be cremated anyway, but I don't even know who's going to be around when I die to pay that money to have me cremated (I'm not close with my family and don't have many friends). I'm not sure what's done with remains if no one pays to deal with them. I'd rather be buried in the woods somewhere and have the animals use me for nutrients.
That'd require there to be a state of deprivation that you get to experience before birth, which creates a pocket of no experience that somehow blocks the conscious experience that exists, via brains that do exist, in the world.
I am currently reading The Human Predicament and enjoy it more than i thought. So far agree with everything David says. I'd say for my myself, i would have been better off not being born. The quality of my life is poor now that i am old and alone and faced with the grim reaper. The Human Predicament is actually a comfort to me...knowing that other people are in my shoes, or worse. Thanks, David!
To the first commenter who said but we are genetically programmed to procreate, can't he figure out that our programming is morally wrong and exceptionally cruel, and realize that he CAN rise above it? It's obvious he cannot THINK and has no compassion. I would give ANYTHING to have not had existence imposed on me. and the third or fourth caller, a woman yapping about non-existent "gawd", made me want to pull all my hair out. I LOVE David Benatar.
@11:32, I have been married for 22 years and we choose to not have children. However, it is very hard to find a woman with those same views. My Mother is very angry with me. 🤔
Better never to have been" is an interesting topic. It would be nice if I could say that it is a wrong question, because it's not really a meaningful philosophical question, and there isn't anything to talk about. But as many people before me have noted, the statement "better never to have been" does seem like a real thing; at least it isn't obviously meaningless or incoherent in any way that I can see. Is being something good? The answer of course depends on what we mean by 'being'. If you look at living organisms from the point of view of evolutionary biology (as understood nowadays), being alive seems pretty useful: life just wouldn't exist without our capacity for meta-level processing and the resulting ability for us to create complex systems with goals other than immediate survival needs. Without these processes, biological evolution would probably not produce anything more complicated than bacteria; perhaps human beings would still emerge but only after millions of years. So, life is good. But living a certain kind of life, or living for certain amount of time are not necessarily good things for the individual who lives that way. Clearly, if you live in constant pain your life is pretty bad; but even if you're moderately happy it's probably better to have never existed than to exist and die after 80 years of mild contentment. So is it better not to have been? Some people think that"Better never to have been" can only mean "if you hadn't existed, the world would be no worse than if you'd never existed", but this does not seem correct. Obviously, a person who never existed cannot make things happen; for example he will not travel and meet wonderful new people; or see beautiful places on Earth; or write books that change human history forever. So some of these things are bad because they didn't happen. So, what does "Better never to have been" mean? It's easy to say that it means something like "If your life had been different in some way, then it would have been better for you if you hadn't existed at all". But that is not quite right either. Let us imagine a slightly changed world; one in which someone else exists instead of the person who actually lived. What did this other person do? Perhaps he studied penguins and wrote books about them: so as far as we know there is nothing bad going on in this new world because of his absence. But what about the person who didn't exist in this world? He can still think, and he is aware that someone else was born instead of him. Because he is so different from his counterpart in the previous scenario, it doesn't seem right to say that being alive has no value for him: but at the same time we cannot really imagine a life worth living for such an individual.
This sounds way too mathematical, calculated and rationalised which life is not. Life and the lack of meaning attached to it are the antithesis of the logic that Benatar tries to apply to it. It is a thought experiment, at best. However, one that is quite relevant and contemporary one for "our" (indeed, whose?) times.
I don't see any proof for the assumption that suffering is de-facto wrong or bad in any way... that seems to be an assumption that I don't think there is a consensus on. Interesting talk, ideas I've heard before but they were articulated very cleanly and clearly in this interview and despite my distaste for this philosophy.. (which I think it much older than just this one man) I did enjoy listening to it either way. Cheers..
Absolutely absurd. I was not experiencing "good" before I existed. This antinatalist argument is premised on the idea that we existed in a state that was "good" before being born. This is wrong, because I didn't exist to experience said "good". The author has to provide evidence that before existing is a "good" state. The only (known) experiences that were occuring before I existed was the experiences occuring in the brains of whichever people and animals that existed (on Earth, and possibly elsewhere). Those were the only consciousnesses at that point in time-not me in some sort of "nothingness" that was good or peaceful. What the author is proposing is as absurd as "resting in peace" after death. The dead are not "at peace" (experiencing peacefulness) - they simply no longer exist! The only experiences/consciousness that will be occuring after I die will be the conscious experiences that are occuring in living brains.
Wrong. He says you are on a neutral state before coming into existence (you do not experience good or bad) which ia better than experience pleasure and pain.
This is mistaken. He is comparing the neutral state (not good, just neutral) of non existence with the both relative and absolute nature of the harmful state of existence. Upon drawing this comparison, it is clearly a valid - though unusual - consideration to make. As generally we only consider scenarios between already existing entities, this requires a different framing. But it still an equally valid comparison.
@@rapturestudios3179 @Mar - Here's a thought experiment. Imagine that everyone (all organisms) in the universe died except for one conscious organism. So the conscious experience of that one and only conscious organism is the only experience there is, period. Now let's say that that one and only organism that exists is somehow experiencing suffering. So suffering is the only experience that there is. Period. So, because the only experience that is occuring (after all of the other conscious experiences ended) is the one conscious experience of suffering -- then that's the experience that came after everyone's deaths. Because it's the only experience there is. ... And so if you were never born, then we cannot say that is good, or even neutral, because experience would still be occuring (via one of the brains that were born - or one that already existed.)
I see no absurdity here. Attain good (positive state of affairs) has inferior priority over stopping bad (negative state of affairs). If I didn't exist, true I'd not feel goodness but I'd not feel badness either. No way I'd trade 3rd degree burns over my body for even all of Elon Musk's wealth, even if none of it were on usually-exposed parts of my body. Thus, it's less bad to not exist despite any pleasures we may get from it. The universe won't care when (yes, when) neither happy nor sad people exist any more.
Nah.... This is a "logic" that one can't argue with.... as you can't deny the "potential" for "suffering" is pretty high.... sure.... that's true.... but who says that's bad? This is all based on "suffering is bad".... Right? Hard to argue with that, I think most of us prefer to AVOID any sort of OVERT mental or physical pain.... But I can argue that this particular "logic" is not taking into account the view that "suffering" isn't "life's fault", it's OUR FAULT.... I can't argue against the logic that if you never existed, you never suffered, there was never anyone there to enjoy or suffer, you just ceased to ever be.... that's an obvious statement, very logical, makes sense.... But at the same time, YOU don't actually know "for sure" WHY you've been put in this position of "potential discomfort or suffering".... So, maybe instead of intentionally focusing on everything that's so awful, you instead focus on the good? This seems like a flimsy response to the much more powerful argument against having never existed.... but if you aren't already of the mindset that life is actually pretty incredible, regardless of the awful things that can certainly happen, I'm not going to be able to create an argument strong enough for you to accept it over the other.... I don't think you're entitled to not suffering.... I think it's an IMMENSELY COMPLICATED world situation we are in.... and humanity HAS THE POWER TO BE BLISSFUL.... This argument against life only holds up while our species remains at odds with each other.... In other words, the "suffering" we endure, is caused BY US.... NOT BY "LIFE".... So I'm not putting the onus on "life".... The onus is ON US.... You would NEVER hear an argument like this in a world where humanity actually worked together, 100% of us.... We'd have clean technologies, incredible medicine, and probably a robust system designed to generate bliss and happiness and limit suffering to near imperceptible levels.... Again, the onus isn't on "life".... We have EVERYTHING WE NEED to live WITHOUT SUFFERING.... So THAT should be your goal then.... But like I said, the "logic" that you can't suffer if you've never existed is true, and if you're going to die on that hill, that's your prerogative.... Cheer up, you're really not here for that long, go enjoy this INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED vessel of yours, be kind to others, be generous, and don't overthink it!! You're here, and if you're watching this video odds are good you are NOT going to want to hear my next statement, but I'm almost certain you're going to be here again.... If you're so sick of your life and life in general, and you feel like rolling the dice and ending everything, remember this, it doesn't matter "if you believe" this or not, and granted I could be completely wrong, but odds are very good that you're coming right back, and you could land anywhere.... too risky!!
I LOVE YOUR OPTIMISM ABOUT LIFE. BUT I REALLY WONDER IF THIS OPTIMISM CHANGES THE FACT THAT LIFE FOR THE MOST PART AND FOR MOST PEOPLE IS FILLED WITH SUFFERING. IT'S EASY TO MAKE CLAIMS LIKE CHEER UP AND ENJOY LIFE WHEN YOU ARE CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A A WAR, FEMINE, DISEASES, NATURAL DISASTERS. WE REALLY OUT TO EVALUATE PRIVILEDGE AND UNDERSTAND THAT NOT EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO THAT PRIVILEDGE
Suffering is, by definition, bad. Even the pain from exercise is bad. If you deny that, then you're confusing the desired end-result with the inevitable by-product of the effort to achieve that result. Also, actually some suffering is not our fault. Merely shoving the bad aside won't make it go away. Furthermore, good (pleasure) has very little, if any, moral/ethical value, for there's no obligation to make anybody's life more high pleasured. It's the difference between living in a well-built working class home and the doctors/lawyer's mansion. By contrast there is a moral obligation to prevent, halt, or rollback badness.
