In this essay, I will argue that Benatar’s theory of anti-natalism should be something to look forward as humans. But also, I will explain a condition that must be fulfilled first for this theory to be applicable. Benatar’s argument of why it is better to not exist shows how the continuation of humanity is more harmful than the absence of humans, he explains that there exists an asymmetry on the value of existence and non-existence on balance. Benatar claims that “as a matter of empirical fact, bad things happen to all of us. No life is without hard-ship.” (Benatar, 345) this means that everyone in the world will suffer some pain at some point in their lives, this includes the richest or the most privileged ones because even if they are protected
…show more content…
For this he shows a simple chart in which there are two scenarios to evaluate, one in which a person exists and one in which this person never exists.
When giving values to these situations scenarios he calls the absence of pleasure “not bad” to understand this, Benatar applies his theory to parenting and explains that, “while there is a duty to avoid bringing suffering people into existence, there is no duty to bring happy people into existence” (Benatar, 346) meaning parents would prefer not to bring a kid into existence if they knew that he most likely would suffer out of different situations like poverty. But for the absence of pleasure to be bad instead of not bad in this scenario, regret of the kid not coming into existence must exist, however we don’t regret it because we know the right thing to do is not bringing person to an existence of suffering.
While I agree with Benatar’s theory I will point out in the following lines why this theory must not be taken into practical …show more content…
This might be true but if you accept my premises and believe that there exists a possibility for a human-like species to reappear, how can someone ensure that the next species will not have highly exaggerated lifespans in addition to a unusual characteristic that could lead to an even exponentially greater harm, like super intelligence and very bad concepts of morality, this would lead to a development of the species which might destroy the world itself after all or even more than
For this he shows a simple chart in which there are two scenarios to evaluate, one in which a person exists and one in which this person never exists.
When giving values to these situations scenarios he calls the absence of pleasure “not bad” to understand this, Benatar applies his theory to parenting and explains that, “while there is a duty to avoid bringing suffering people into existence, there is no duty to bring happy people into existence” (Benatar, 346) meaning parents would prefer not to bring a kid into existence if they knew that he most likely would suffer out of different situations like poverty. But for the absence of pleasure to be bad instead of not bad in this scenario, regret of the kid not coming into existence must exist, however we don’t regret it because we know the right thing to do is not bringing person to an existence of suffering.
While I agree with Benatar’s theory I will point out in the following lines why this theory must not be taken into practical …show more content…
This might be true but if you accept my premises and believe that there exists a possibility for a human-like species to reappear, how can someone ensure that the next species will not have highly exaggerated lifespans in addition to a unusual characteristic that could lead to an even exponentially greater harm, like super intelligence and very bad concepts of morality, this would lead to a development of the species which might destroy the world itself after all or even more than