I’d love to know which interview that was from! I haven’t been able to find any videos of Benatar (I’m assuming he prioritizes being completely anonymous, and he argues that bringing up his personal life doesn’t not help his argument whatsoever, but nonetheless I am very curious about his personal life!)
One of the most interesting things about David Benatar is that I had never heard of him until the algorithm threw him up alongside Schopenhauer. I have always had anti natalist sympathies without knowing that anti natalism was a thing . Having listened to David on the RU-vid presentation I was struck by the fact that there were thousands of supporting comments in the comments section . All of those people ( including myself ) had come to hold anti natalist views based on their own experience or observation of life . They hadn't been won over by David's philosophical arguments. This is still a very Taboo subject .
The Asymmetry Argument is illogical. It's a deepity. It'd only make sense if "non-existence" were an actual perpetual state. Just as your lack of existing wasn't able to stop the imposition of conscious experience via the birth of a brain (the one reading this right now); your lack of existing wouldn't have stopped the imposition of experience via the birth of some other brain. It was merely the birth of a life that ended "non-existence" (before birth)... So if that's all it takes (the birth of a life) then this life not being born wouldn't have stopped some other life from being the one that stopped that non-existence... Sorry but there is no avoiding it. If it wasn't this life, it would have been some other life. If it isn't one life it's another. Only experience is what's experienced. There's no such thing as a "non-experience"... Benatar believes in some sort of phantom version of us exists in some places he calls "non-existence", and not being born keeps us safe... Once you see that if it wasn't this life it would have been some other life; you immediately see that Benatar's Asymmetry Argument is based on very bad reasoning... There's nothing impressive about it. It's woo...
@@naturalisted1714 I apologize but I am too stupid to understand your argument. However , I don't think you can call the views of a Professor of philosophy ' woo , woo ' . Why don't you challenge David Benatar about this or maybe you should critique his whole book ' Better not to have been ' . Professor Benatar has no desire to convert anyone to anti natalism but he appeals to people who ( based on their experience or observation ) that ' life is crap and then you die ' . For various reasons I share the pessimism of Schopenhauer. If you criticise Benatar you really need to critique Schopenhauer as well . When I first came across Benatar on RU-vid I was somewhat moved to see a Comments section that was filled with thousands ( yes thousands ) of comments basically saying ' thank you David I thought it was just me ! ' . I might add that like Schopenhauer I take great comfort in advaita Vedanta ( and certain Buddhist schools ) because at the heart of most Eastern traditions is the acceptance that ' life in the world is full of suffering ' and they provide paths to end suffering with the aim to never be born again . If you are perfectly happy in life and can face death ( and the often awful process of dying ) quite easily then good luck to you . If you are happy to bring new life into the world and support and reassure them through all the potential challenges in life ( and look them in the eye if they get terrible diseases ) then have children by all means .✌️🕉️
I'm reading his book right now. I do not agree with Benatar when he writes that the presence of pleasure in a living person is no better than the absence of pleasure in a non-existent one. Like, wha? Pleasure is a state that a living being likes, therefore it is good. Non-existence is the absence of any state that can neither be liked nor disliked, and as a result, it cannot be on the same level with 1) the state, 2) the state that is liked. I know Benatar will answer that a non-existent person is not upset by the lack of pleasure, but then we will have to admit that the absence of suffering is also not good for him, because he doesn't care about it either. Then Benatar will say that from the point of view of an existing person, the absence of suffering is good. But then you can answer that for an existing person, the lack of pleasure is also not OK. And then everything will go round in a new way. And all because Benatar bases his asymmetry and further conclusions on inconsistent philistine intuition. Well, also the idea that in fact all people suffer tremendously morally, it's just that most do not suffer from suffering - this may seem convincing to someone, but as for me, it's all some kind of joke. Suffering is an exclusively subjective thing. If a person subjectively does not suffer, then he does not suffer.
@@michaeldillon3113 Here's my issue antinatalism: while I may agree that not everyone should have kids and that life has so much pain and hardship, I cannot entirely agree with the philosophy. In short, it gives me the impression that I am a victim just for existing and assumes the nature of consciousness. The long answer, here it is: I don't plan on having kids but I don't wish to align myself with antinatalism. It is a pessimistic and depressing philosophy that gives me the impression that I and all other living being in existence or has existed is a victim just be being born. I'd rather not view myself as such. I simply choose not to have kids because I am uncertain of the planet's future regarding climate change and that I go through anxiety (even animals strive to pick a safe place to have offspring as far as their intelligence goes). Besides, this raises the question of consciousness. I don't believe that had my parents not conceive, I would never have gained consciousness. Why would my awareness remain dormant unless a specific child was born under a specific set of parents? Even if mine didn't conceive, I likely would have been born under any other lifeform. Hell, even if all life on earth ceased to be, my awareness would likely go somewhere else. My personality and behavior may be different. Hell, my brain in this life goes through changes all the time. But my awareness remains constant. What happens after death? Who knows. Maybe there's an afterlife I go to like what NDEs indicate and that I incarnate to learn new things and expand my consciousness. In fact, NDEs and other spiritual phenomenon (as well as spiritual beliefs like buddhism and hinduism) seem to indicate that not only did our consciousness/awareness exist before births, but also that it chooses to incarnate into vessels. So, even if we wipe out all life in this world, consciousness will find away to manifest physically. In the meantime, I will make the most out of my life. Life is tough and that many lives are tragic and deserved better parents. But I'm not going to view it as a tragedy, especially when I don't think you can fight against the nature of existence. Nor am I going to adopt a holier than thou view on every single living being that has/had offspring and thus look down upon nearly all of life (much less my ancestors). That would give me existential dread and misery. I much rather focus on finding my own meaning in existence. I may be childfree but I'd rather wish good luck and joy to parents rather than condemnation. Speaking of, one thing I do agree to an extant on is that people shouldn't willy nilly have kids without thinking ahead. As the saying goes, every child deserves a parent but not every parent deserves a child. If consciousness is going to manifest in a new vessel, it should be one that's in a healthy environment with much love and care to help ensure a better life. Like I said before, even animals strive to have offspring in environments they think are safe. Basically, the parents should take responsibility and share with their child's struggles and achievements.
@@naturalisted1714 you can't create harm if no one is born experience has the prerequisite of being born, it's kind of ironic and dishonest to misunderstand the position to this extent the point is you can make the decision rationally if it is worth or not to bring a child on this planet, it's irrelevant whether someone else does it or not, since the argument is about rationally thinking about the implications and potential harm that a newborn/new sentient being will have to go through, because of a decision of irrational beings. essentially you make the assumptions of a kind of unproven spirituality that doesn't even devaluate the argument made in itself it's just a form of whataboutism.
It is rare to see people who have had children still agree with or concede to Benatar's view. It is worth admiring. If you are one of those few, salute to you. And maybe it is too late for parents to reverse the process, but is never late to spread the message to others who have not become parents.
The Asymmetry Argument is illogical. It's a deepity. It'd only make sense if "non-existence" were an actual perpetual state. Just as your lack of existing wasn't able to stop the imposition of conscious experience via the birth of a brain (the one reading this right now); your lack of existing wouldn't have stopped the imposition of experience via the birth of some other brain. It was merely the birth of a life that ended "non-existence" (before birth)... So if that's all it takes (the birth of a life) then this life not being born wouldn't have stopped some other life from being the one that stopped that non-existence... Sorry but there is no avoiding it. If it wasn't this life, it would have been some other life. If it isn't one life it's another. Only experience is what's experienced. There's no such thing as a "non-experience"... Benatar believes in some sort of phantom version of us exists in some places he calls "non-existence", and not being born keeps us safe... Once you see that if it wasn't this life it would have been some other life; you immediately see that Benatar's Asymmetry Argument is based on very bad reasoning... There's nothing impressive about it. It's woo...
@@naturalisted1714 ask yourself this, do you remember anything before you were born? how about when you were a just being born into the world? do you remember that feeling of the doctor pull your out from your mother's womb? that just disprove your argument about there is no such thing as non-experience.. non-existence and non-experience is the default states... before you were being conceive, you doesnt exist... you only walk the earth ever since you were born, but you doesnt exist as long as the universe has existed, so how can you say there is no such thing as non existence when you spend more time being non existence than in existence? if you still dont understand, think about it this way, lets say you want to make a table, that table only come into existence when you think about making it, so before you were thinking about making a table, that table is in non existence, so there is the prove of existence of non existence. also you dont really understand Benatar argument, he is arguing it's better not to bring a life into the world because you are going to cause it to experience pain and suffering by just simply causing it to exist in the world... the experience is inevitable as long as it is in existence because pain and suffering are a part of being alive, you have the ability to feel pain because you are alive in the 1st place... so why would you want to bring someone into the world so they could experience pain and suffering? isnt that kinda... evil?
@@naturalisted1714 Thats just false. If no births occur, than no "non-existence has not stopped a life coming into existence". There will be no "other life" (if that is even a coherent concept).
I’m an anti-natalist, and I don’t hate people who are pregnant or choose to have kids. I have compassion for them. So, if someone comes up to me and ask, “Are you happy that I’m having a baby?” Firstly, my initial reaction would be, “That’s an odd question. Why are you asking me?” My second reaction would be of kindness and compassion, knowing how tough it will be to bring sentient beings into this reality. I would say, “Take good care of your children, and don’t hesitate to spoil them as much as you can.”
It variates.." are you happy for me that i have a child," is probably the most dumb question, i would ask" if you and your partner are happy why ask me?!! " not my business at all. I know lots of parents are so selfish they dont care a lot after the Baby is there, they allways cryn: i dont get sleep, the Baby is anoying etc..
I agree, I'm not angry or emotional if someone creates life. I understand that most people have never really thought deeply about having children. I was the same before I heard about Anti-natalism
Interesting presentation. Brings up many questions which may or may not be answered by a thorough reading of Benatar. One question is why settle for binary values for good and bad? Wouldn't a fuzzy numeric (say 1-100) or fractional value for each quality be more realistic? Would this line of ethical thinking preclude ever ethically creating a conscious AI or virtual consciousness, were this ever technically possible? And is this reasoning species-ist? Or does it go beyond humanity into suffering in the non-human animal world where existence is necessarily one of deprivation and suffering? Even plant, single cell eukaryote, and prokaryote life live brutal existences. Would it under this line of thinking, be logical to painlessly end all forms of life? At least obviously conscious forms of life? Would non-existence (absence of pain/pleasure) for everything everywhere give us the greatest good?
Totally agree ,endless of all life means endless of pain, the astronaut that saw this little rock and said "so calm and peaceful, there is no suffering because there is no life
I think Cushing's comment about the "gods eye view" is the problem I have with many of Benatar's arguments. He isnt consistent about whose perspective hes using. For example: In scenario B number 3, who is it "good" for that a person who doesnt exist doesnt have suffering? Its not good for the person who doesn't exist. Its good for the moralist who has not brought a person into the world who will suffer. Its good for God who sees a lack of suffering.
The view seems to entail that painlessly killing is good because it gets "you" into a better state (or even non painlessly if the pain is lesser than the alternative). Of course only absent practical concerns.
Such a glowing example of How rationalism, empiricism and nominalism leads nihilism. The ironic thing is I’m in favor of anti-natalism for all who espouse it. As far as I’m concerned you’re doing the right thing.
This is all so intuitive to me that, while it's nice to see it literally drawn on a board and explained like this, it feels completely hopeless that it needs to be literally drawn on a board and explained like this.
Even if Benatar had children, many parents learn after having children of the child's life full of misery and suffering. Of course there are breeders who never recognize the suffering of their children, but those breeders are selfish, unconscious, and narcissistic. Another point is, not all breeders are parents.
I like the idea of putting pizza into the tables. gross pizza is bad tasty pizza is good gross pizza not existing is good tasty pizza not existing is not bad Therefore, pizza that doesn't exist is overall better than pizza that does exist Also disagree with his argument about there being more suffering than we think. An individuals life is only as good as their perception of their environment. Would it better to live a life of 90% suffering but you only can remember the good, or one of 90% good where you only remember the suffering? I wonder if most people would press a button that would stop them from ever existing. I assume it probably wouldn't be the majority, but who knows.
the pizza is being enjoyed by third persons, it isn't experiencing anything, that's why this doesn't make sense. and philosophically speaking you could claim pizza not existing could be a net benefit for humanity
Opponents of Prof. Benatar try to “get him” by asking if he has children. I don’t think he does BUT even he does, it doesn’t matter. Maybe he had children before he wrote his essay? Maybe thinking about the harm he has inflicted on his offspring into this world is what opened his eyes and his mind to the truth? His personal life is none of my business. Anti-natalism existed long before Prof. Benatar, but he gave it logic and coherence. So what if he has children? He probably loves and nurtures his children even more than normal parents (because he knows how life is full of suffering). I have a niece and nephew, and I care for them, eventhough I’m an anti-natalist. Because I know what’s in store for them (same thing that’s in store for all of us that chose not to be born into this existence).
I wouldnt stop at asking him about having children, I would ask if he has ever loved or been loved, whether he can see beauty in the world, if he has experienced great joy, bliss and peace.
it's easier to understand what he is getting at with simple math... present of pain = bad = negative experience = -1 present of pleasures = good = positive experience = 1 absent of pain = good = positive experience = 1 absent of pleasure = not bad = neither positive or negative experience = 0 so if x exist = -1+1 = 0, if x didnt exist = 1+0=1 therefore it's better for x not to exist as the result is a positive value.
Why do we always talk about pleasure. Pleasure is just en egoistic desire. What about love, bliss, deep states of fulfillment. isn't it bad to not have the chance to experience consciousness?
@@frankweiss335 frankly consciousness is like life, it's overrated.. it's a curse, not a gift.. being unconscious is the only time where you are truly at peace as it's the only time where you wont experience suffering... being forcibly pull into this world and have consciousness forced into us is the beginning of suffering, in fact suffering is the very first experience everyone experience in this cursed world... there is a reason why baby arent born laughing...
@@zerocalvin i get your point. Its is rational from the Perspektive of believe in nothing or something. But lets assume that there is something after the death. That you Came into These realm ( forcefull or not) to expirience it or to realize your godnature. Im not saying the World is not cruel but maybe only maybe it is a Part of something bigger than just pointless Existence.
Based on the principle that non-living is better than living, what exactly does that imply in practice? Celibacy, birth control, the criminalization of giving birth, mandatory abortions, mandatory sterilization, the criminalization of life saving medical procedures, the legalization of murder, the encouragement of suicide? Also Benatar is an atheist. Presumably he doesn’t believe in a soul or free will. If so, we have no choice about anything which we do including having children. Whatever we do is simply brain chemistry interacting with the environment therefore why bother discussing this?
@@neverliveevil6113 My answer is that we do have free will and therefore it’s incumbent upon us to encourage others to do good. However from an atheistic point of view what is the point of trying to influence others? You may as well try to influence a potato.
@@JacobStein1960 We don't need to have free will to understand that we are capable of influencing others. Brains respond to the environment and we have the capacity to influence the environment and therefore influence other brains by extension. It's extremely easy to influence a potato. Simply change it's environmental stimulus.
@@neverliveevil6113 From an atheistic point of view the idea of "I" or "you" is an illusion. We have no identity separate from the rest of the universe. We are just as much a part of nature as a water molecule in the ocean or star in the sky. Matter and energy flows around us, into and out of us determining our existence, form and behavior like a thundercloud in the sky or a wave on the ocean. The concept of being convinced of this or that and consciously making choices is an irrational illusion, a trick our mind is playing on us.
The Asymmetry Argument is illogical. It's a deepity. It'd only make sense if "non-existence" were an actual perpetual state. Just as your lack of existing wasn't able to stop the imposition of conscious experience via the birth of a brain (the one reading this right now); your lack of existing wouldn't have stopped the imposition of experience via the birth of some _other_ brain. It was merely the birth of a life that ended "non-existence" (before birth)... So if that's all it takes (the birth of a life) then _this_ life not being born wouldn't have stopped some other life from being the one that stopped that non-existence... Sorry but there is no avoiding it. If it wasn't _this_ life, it would have been some other life. If it isn't one life it's another. Only experience is what's experienced. There's no such thing as a "non-experience"... Benatar believes some sort of phantom version of us exists in some place he calls "non-existence", and that not being born keeps us safe... Once you see that if it wasn't this life it would have been some other life; you immediately see that Benatar's Asymmetry Argument is based on very bad reasoning... There's nothing impressive about it. It's woo...
One thing is certain, a good life is better than a bad life. As an adult if I would not willy nilly have kids if I could not relatively give them a good chance at a good life. That is one practical wisdom from this philosophy.
