What is Reddit's opinion of
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
77 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
You should check out the Better not to have been book. The general idea is that it is more beneficial to have never been born. But, suicide is so hard to accomplish - mentally and physically - that it might not be beneficial to kill yourself.
Besides there are costs involved - say I'm 24, I have finally moved out from parents, live on my own. I have never been as free in my life before. All the childhood that sucked, the school are left behind. Im finally my own person. Health wise this is one of the highest point in one's life. From 30 it's going to go on downhill. Basically this and the next decade are going to be the best time of my life. Might as well make use of it if only to compensate for the shitty early part of my life. If/when it gets bad in my 40s+ I might just opt out of this game, and no family would be great in that regard - I would always be able to leave whenever I would want.
Life is essentially about costs and benefits. Most people trudge on because the pleasure shots they get out weight the suffering and the pain of suicide. It is true for me too (for now). But I would still prefer not to have existed.
/r/antinatalism rules
You may be interested in reading some of David Benatar's works, namely Better Never to Have Been.
I sympathise with much of Benatar and Schopenhauer's writings, with the degrading climate and environment only reinforcing these beliefs. The only reason I remain a fence sitter is because I know I'm a hypocrite, as well as other philosophical and metaphysical beliefs.
I do however advise you not to pay too much attention to the antinatalism subreddit unless you're well versed in filtering biases. It seems to be heavily populated with misanthropes, and in my opinion is a pretty shallow take on antinatalism as a philosophical idea.
You are indeed blessed, but you don't deserve an explanation from me with that bullshit sarcasm in your post.
Visit /r/antinatalism and do some reading if you really want an explanation. Spoiler alert: the book is way better than the subreddit.
this is exactly what this book talks about, IDK I believe that life is meaningless and am pretty sure that it is NOT about happiness, even successful people may have a miserable life. and I remember J.Peterson saying that it's just a succession of hard choices and challenges that you face every day and that's all.
I'm an anti-natalist, i.e. I believe it's immoral to have kids. The brief rundown of why I believe this to be the case is basically just that, no matter what kind of life we live, we're inevitably going to suffer to some extent. We'll face emotional pains, physical pains, disease, injury, degregation, and eventually we'll die. If we aren't born, we don't experience any of those things, so that strikes me as a pretty clear positive. We do miss out on the good things in life, but since we aren't born, there is no mechanism by which we can regret missing out on these things, so that doesn't seem like a bad thing.
Naysayers to this point of view tend to say either:
If avoiding suffering is good, then missing out on pleasure is bad; or,
If it isn't bad to miss out on pleasure because we don't regret it, then it isn't good to miss out on suffering because we don't appreciate it.
However this symmetry isn't appropriate in my view. Avoiding suffering is just a flat out good, regardless of whether or not you appreciate it, and regardless of whether or not you're born. But missing out on pleasure is only bad if you actively regret it or feel bad about it. If you miss out on something you would have enjoyed but you don't care, then that's not really a bad thing.
That's basically a quick and dirty introduction to David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, which is what converted me to this way of thinking.
And no, I don't want to kill myself.
r/antinatalism took an interesting philosophy and used it as an excuse to call people “breeders” and say some pretty hateful shit about anyone having kids. The subreddit is fucked but the idea itself is an interesting perspective, I would recommend this book if you're at all interested in this philosophy
> Can we say that antinatalism as a position is flawed or doesn't have any philosophical merit?
Benetar's Better Never to Have been addresses one of the difficulties of advocating antinatalism in the Preface:
> Many readers will be inclined to dismiss my arguments and will do so too hastily. When rejecting an unpopular view, it is extraordinarily easy to be overly confident in the force of one’s responses. This is partly because there is less felt need to justify one’s views when one is defending an orthodoxy. It is also partly because counter-responses from those critical of this orthodoxy, given their rarity, are harder to anticipate.
Antinatism directly conflicts with orthodox beliefs with which we are raised, with which we are familiar, and which most folks use to justify their struggle of life. The fact that antinatalism is counter-intuitive to most folks does not make the argument bad. The fact that antinatalism is not conducive to selling Hallmark cards, or helpful in the quest to convince folks to produce more human capital stock, does not mean the position is inherently flawed.
Statements can be true despite their making us sad.
That is a difficulty some folks cannot get past when assessing antinatalism. They are so hung up on the practical issues that follow from antinatalism that they cannot clearly assess whether the arguments are internally consistent, or follow from true premises.
Of course, the answer will depend on your rubric for discerning whether or not X has philosophical merit.
Read David Benatar's book: Better to never have been. Its one of the more popular antinatalist books.
In my opinion, all parents should read this book before deciding to have a child.
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
I never understand why so many hunters say they don’t enjoy the “killing of the animal”. I enjoy the whole process, waking up early driving to a good location, I enjoy the pursuit, the camping, the killing, the gutting/cleaning and the eating. The argument you are using will always end in “why don’t you peruse photograph” or some other nonsense.
Also it’s impossible to argue with a vegan using Hedonism as a foundation. Veganism and Anti-Natalism are the logical conclusion of Hedonics. From a Hedonistic perspective not eating meat will always be more moral and cause less suffering than any form of meat eating, including hunting. But the very best thing that a vegan can do, as outlined in David Benatar’s book Better Never To Have Been is not bring new life into a universe of suffering; furthermore not having children is the best thing they can do to reduce the suffering of animals (fewer people to eat animal, encroach on wild spaces etc.) and for the environment.
Don’t bother with Hedonics or making Hedonistic arguments, it’s a completely stupid principle.
> David Benatar may be the world’s most pessimistic philosopher. An “anti-natalist,” he believes that life is so bad, so painful, that human beings should stop having children for reasons of compassion. “While good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place,” he writes, in a 2006 book called “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence.” In Benatar’s view, reproducing is intrinsically cruel and irresponsible—not just because a horrible fate can befall anyone, but because life itself is “permeated by badness.” In part for this reason, he thinks that the world would be a better place if sentient life disappeared altogether.
> [...] Undoubtedly, Benatar is a private person by nature. But his anonymity also serves a purpose: it prevents readers from psychologizing him and attributing his views to depression, trauma, or some other aspect of his personality. He wants his arguments to be confronted in themselves. “Sometimes people ask, ‘Do you have children?’ ” he told me later. (He speaks calmly and evenly, in a South African accent.) “And I say, ‘I don’t see why that’s relevant. If I do, I’m a hypocrite—but my arguments could still be right.’ ” When he told me that he’s had anti-natalist views since he was “very young,” I asked how young. “A child,” he said, after a pause. He smiled uncomfortably. This was exactly the kind of personal question he preferred not to answer.
> your determination to catapult this question I had into a debate … Instead of hopping on to assume the worst about mothers who may have a question to ask another
I don't want to catapult this into a debate. I was just interested in the answer to my question. And I don't know why you think I assume the worst, far from it. I'm just wondering why you'd not be interested in a dad's perspective on this question. I don't think it's similar to asking about "how come I have erectile dysfunction?" - and even so, there are plenty of female sexologists that have a 100x better answer than any random dude.
> I do feel asking other mothers about their experiences was warranted due to the hormonal aspects involved
Thanks, I can get that, I guess that could make it more likely for women/moms while men/dads can have the same experience. And...you know, that answer was basically all I was wondering about. Other people have tried to turn this into a debate.
Have you heard of David Benatar's "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence", I also found it after the fact. Perhaps you might find that interesting.
Religion brings more bad than good, usually, so it's not something I'd rather use. Philosophy is another matter of course. For example /r/stoicism. It's not dogmatic the way religions are and is focused on reasoning rather than blind belief. Stoicism provides some meaning and frame for good living, but also accepts that suicide is an OK way out sometimes.
But it's just an imperfect solution to an unnecessary problem of life. The thing is, usually life is not meant living: this book provides nice arguments. Some lives of course are nice enough to even make up for all the sufferings, but how many? The world isn't made up of happy people, for the most part it's poor sick and oppressed struggling to survive. Even in 1st world countries.
> All women are whores? So that includes your mom?
More accurately, all post-feminist Western women. My mother's from the old country. Real gem of a woman who was a maiden when she met and married my father, has been a doting mother to me and my sister (and seems to have done an alright job of raising her daughter to be like her), and will grow into a pleasant old crone. My mother's a wonderful woman.
> Men can be whores too, and you sound like one more than anyone I know.
I wish women would pay me to have sex with them.
> Do us a favor and don't procreate.
Actually had a vasectomy last year (I'm an antinatalist who won't cause suffering - try reading David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been for more).
I'm surprised at your rhetoric, given that you're suicidal and damaged. Don't you wish you'd never been born? It would have been a favor to you if your hairless ape of a mother never spawned.
>What a cunt. If he believes humans are such a burden why does he continue his own life.
There's actually many people who believe similarly to the position that man gives in his video. Anti-natalism is one such position. David benatar wrote a book you can see here:
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
I'm sure much of the books content is available online, if you actually wish to examine the positions of others. Likely college lectors on youtube about it too.
There's also movements and groups like the voluntary extinction group/project. Unsure of the exact name but you'll find them if you care to look it up. Many different ideas/philosophies some brutal others entirely non-violent however; they all share the one goal of ending the human race/life.
While some fringe/oddballs may hold these beliefs without any real reason there also appears to be many especially in the world of philosophy who argue rather strongly for arguments much like the video puts forth. Arthur Schopenhauer is a notable example.
If you want to research the different stances yourself, you can look up anti-natalism in general. Personally, I subscribe to David Benatar's idea (taken from summary of this book):
>David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived.
>be born without consent
required reading for depressedcels
This is probably coming too late for anyone to read, but...
As some people have pointed out, anyone who's read Benatar's book will realize that most people here are missing the point. It's not about humans damaging nature or humans being evil or anything like that. This article is essentially based on one main point from Benatar's book: causing a possible future being not to exist causes it no harm. It's wrong to hurt someone if they do exist, but causing them to never have existed isn't wrong. If this were not so, we'd be morally obligated to have as many children as possible (bounded by some other moral criteria, perhaps).
Or to give a concrete example, if a woman decides she doesn't want to have children, countless possible beings will never be born because of that choice. Can we meaningfully say that any of them have been harmed by that choice? Well, it doesn't really seem to make any sense to say so. Even if you have some vague inclination to say that having kids is a good thing if you'll give them a good life, the choice at any given moment to have children will rule out many possible people from existing anyway since it's impossible to create every possible being. So it just doesn't seem to make sense to say that making a decision that results in any particular person being born harms that person in particular. (And if you do have that intuition that having kids who you raise well is a good thing in general, I would respond: go read his book. The main points are addressed there and there's no way I'm summarizing everything here in a reddit post.)
So Benatar is just applying this idea to humans- and all life- as a class. What harm, exactly, is done if everyone just kind of decided to not have kids and died? Well, if you can't hurt people who don't exist, and it's not wrong to make a choice that causes someone to not exist... it seems difficult to say you did anything wrong at all. If anything is wrong, it's just secondary consequences of that choice for currently living beings. Killing all lions is a tragedy for every lion that's currently alive. It's also probably a tragedy in slow motion for the ecosystems of Africa. It's not a problem for all the lions that will never be born.
So if in the natural course of events, a species happens to go extinct- if it's not doing harm to the ecosystem, what harm exactly has occurred? Species die all the time. The only sadness is in the twilight years of the species, and all attendant consequences of shrinking gene pools and the failure to find mates. And, personally, I actually find that incredibly sad, but once it's done it's done. And humans are no exception. That's the point Benatar is making in this article, not to say that humans are evil or harmful or anything like that.
I highly recommend the book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence, by the philosopher David Benatar.
Some threads popped up about anti-natalism after Robin Hanson's father's day article. Hanson seems to be really good at generating controversy, even when he isn't taking a controversial view. Anyways, a user suggested that people go read chapters 1 and 2 of
<em>Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence</em> by David Benatar
I do feel like it was a waste of my time to read the chapters. And if you read the amazon reviews there are some anti-natalists bashing the book: https://amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/product-reviews/0199549265/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=one_star&pageNumber=1
The summary on wikipedia seems more than sufficient:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar#Philosophical_work
>Asymmetry between pain and pleasure
>Benatar argues there is an asymmetry between pleasure and pain, which means it would be better for humans not to have been alive:
>1. the presence of pain is bad; >2. the presence of pleasure is good; >3. the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone; >4. the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
I disagree with his argument about an asymmetry. Choosing a complete absence of pleasure/meaningness/happiness seems bad. If anything I'd compare this to a public goods problem. No one has a specific obligation to provide a public good, but providing that public good is generally a good thing. The actual result is that there will be an underproduction of the public good. Meaning my conclusions are the exactly the opposite of Benatar: that children are under-produced.
>Implications for procreation
>Benatar argues that bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.
>Benatar raises four other related asymmetries that he considers quite plausible:
>1. We have a moral obligation not to create unhappy people, and we have no moral obligation to create happy people. The reason why there is a moral obligation not to create unhappy people is that we believe the presence of pain is bad for those who are hurt, and the absence of pain is good also when there is no someone who is experiencing this good. By contrast, the reason for which there is no moral obligation to create happy people is that although the feeling of pleasure would be good for them, the absence of pleasure when they do not come into existence will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good. 2. It is strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide to create it, and it is not strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide not to create it. That the child may be happy is not a morally important reason to create it. By contrast, that the child may be unhappy is an important moral reason to not create it. If the absence of pleasure is bad even if someone does not exist to experience its absence, we would have a significant moral reason to create a child, and to create as many children as possible. If, however, the absence of pain wouldn't be good even if someone would not experience this good, we would not have a significant moral reason not to create a child. 3. Someday we can regret for the sake of the good of a man whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created him – a man can be unhappy and the presence of his pain would be a bad thing. But we will never feel regret for the sake of the good of a man whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we did not create him – a man will not be deprived of happiness, because he will never exist, and the absence of happiness will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good. 4. We feel sadness by the fact that somewhere people came into existence and suffer, and we feel no sadness by the fact that somewhere people not came into existence and in this place there is no happy people. When we know that somewhere people came into existence and suffering, we feel compassion. The fact that on some deserted island or planet, people not came into existence and not suffer is good. This is because the absence of pain is good even when there is someone who is experiencing this good. On the other hand, we do not feel sadness by the fact that on some deserted island or planet people not came into existence and are not happy. This is because the absence of pleasure is bad only when there is someone who is deprived of this good.
All of these of course rest on accepting his initial premises. But I'm including them for completeness sake.
>Humans' unreliable assessment of life's quality
>Benatar raises the issue of whether humans inaccurately estimate the true quality of their lives, and has cited three psychological phenomena which he believes are responsible for this:
>1. Tendency towards optimism: we have a positively distorted perspective of our lives in the past, present, and future. 2. Adaptation: we adapt to our circumstances, and if they worsen, our sense of well-being is lowered in anticipation of those harmful circumstances, according to our expectations, which are usually divorced from the reality of our circumstances. 3. Comparison: we judge our lives by comparing them to those of others, ignoring the negatives which affect everyone to focus on specific differences. And due to our optimism bias, we mostly compare ourselves to those worse off, to overestimate the value of our own well-being.
>He concludes;
>>The above psychological phenomena are unsurprising from an evolutionary perspective. They militate against suicide and in favour of reproduction. If our lives are quite as bad as I shall still suggest they are, and if people were prone to see this true quality of their lives for what it is, they might be much more inclined to kill themselves, or at least not to produce more such lives. Pessimism, then, tends not to be naturally selected.
This also seems relevant since many people have been pointing out the anti-human life nature of anti-natalism. Benatar seems to be an excellent example:
>Personal Life
>Benatar is vegan, and has taken part in debates on veganism. He has argued that humans are "responsible for the suffering and deaths of billions of other humans and non-human animals. If that level of destruction were caused by another species we would rapidly recommend that new members of that species not be brought into existence."
Read these, and put your mind at ease about not having children.
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-against-Human-Race-Contrivance/dp/0143133144
Premise 1 issues — How do they know it is way worse if wrong about PC than PL? There are other issues to contend with besides the violation of women’s’ rights. For example, If we use the same line of logic as the pro-lifer does concerning the future, abortion is also a loss of a future life consisting of bad conscious experiences which makes a premature death (i.e. by means of abortion) good. Additionally, due to humans’ positive biases of social comparison (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/social-compa rison-theory), the Pollyanna Principle (https://www.pnas.org/content/112/8/2389, https://positivepsychology.com/pollyanna-principle/, https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pollyanna-phenomen on-and-non-inferiority-how-our-experience-and-research-c an-lead-to-poor-treatment-choices/, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231575506_Happ iness_depression_and_the_Pollyanna_principle) the Dunning-Kruger Effect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B978 0123855220000056, https://youtu.be/kSsusGc0FVo, https://www.forbes.com/sites/markmurphy/2017/01/24/the- dunning-kruger-effect-shows-why-some-people-think-theyre-great-even-when-their-work-is-terrible/?sh=7166c2575d7 cm, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/) and Terror Management Theory (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/terror-manag ement-theory, http://ernestbecker.org/resources/terror-management-theor y/, https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/soci al-psychology-theories/terror-management-theory/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S006 5260108600167, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868309 352321, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo- 9780199828340/obo-9780199828340-0058.xml, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289309102_Thirt y_Years_of_Terror_Management_Theory, https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128118443/hand book-of-terror-management-theory, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Handbook_of_Theor ies_of_Social_Psycholog/0QuyCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 &dq=terror+management+theory&pg=PA398&printsec=fro ntcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), the positives which happen to us are less good than we judge them to be meaning that our lives are worse than we assess them to be. (https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existe nce/dp/0199549265, https://youtu.be/S-HHWwsLsfU). Additionally, the bads have a greater effect on us than the goods do. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46608952_Bad_I s_Stronger_than_Good). These points lead us to the conclusion that the positives promoted by the pro-lifer as justification for the potential future are not as good as stated in order to counter the objectively greater bads we will experience, and that a premature death (i.e. by means of abortion) is preferable. (https://jiwoonhwang.wordpress.com/2018/07/12/promortali sm/, https://www.academia.edu/1532865/Better_No_Longer_To _Be, https://youtu.be/4Cifcih7A4w, https://youtu.be/osnjC2yVkoI, https://youtu.be/tOsWhYDHkmc, https://youtu.be/yvM8tuMCsNk, https://youtu.be/C8b0Sf-E3a0, https://counterintuitive.home.blog/2019/11/01/promortalism -and-the-just-kill-yourself-argument/, https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/hume1757e ssay3.pdf)
Premise 3 issues — We cannot be absolutely certain about anything so the best we can do is base our actions on probabilities and what is logically true. The premise can be used in the same way against the PL position by just changing out PC for PL; this shows the weakens in the premise. To avoid this they would have to change their wording so the switch couldn’t be applicable.
Most certainly, see David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been.
It is IMO a very well justified position.
I wonder if your attitude toward the situation has been shaped by implicit metaphysical and ethical assumptions you may be making without even realizing it, assumptions that have been challenged. It may help to learn more about personal ontology, the field of philosophy that focuses on the question of what we are.
For example, many pro-life advocates seem to accept animalism, the thesis that each of us is identical to a human organism. If animalism is true, it is plausible that each of us came into existence no later than 20 days after conception (when twinning is no longer possible). People who assume the truth of animalism may be inclined to view a human fetus as the same kind of thing as them. They may think, "I was a fetus. What if someone had aborted me?"
In fact, many pro-life advocates don't really accept animalism (or if they do, they have inconsistent beliefs). For human organisms cease to exist at or shortly after death, and yet many pro-life advocates believe that individuals like you or me continue to exist long after death (say, in Heaven). This commits them to holding that each of us is not identical to a human organism. This follows from their belief system together with Leibniz's law: if a = b, then everything that is true of a is true of b (and vice versa). For example: if I am identical to this human organism ("my body"), then I will cease to exist when this human organism ("my body") ceases to exist. Since many pro-life advocates reject the claim that I will cease to exist when this human organism ("my body") ceases to exist, they are committed to rejecting animalism, which says that I am identical to this human organism ("my body").
Some philosophers argue against animalism and maintain that we aren't human organisms at all! For example, Jeff McMahan maintains that each of us is brain region that came into existence when the biological organism with which we are associated ("our body") acquired the capacity for consciousness. He calls this the embodied mind view. No capacity for consciousness? No you or me.
Note the implications of this view. My mother thinks back to 25 days after conception and says, "I was pregnant with you back then." If the embodied mind view is correct, my mother is mistaken. She wasn't pregnant with me 25 days after conception, because I didn't come into existence until much later—on McMahan's interpretation of the empirical evidence, between 22 and 30 weeks after conception.
You can learn more about McMahan's view here: https://philosophybites.com/2012/04/jeff-mcmahan-on-moral-status.html
Here is the crucial takeaway: if McMahan's embodied mind view is correct, aborting a fetus prior to 22 weeks after conception is morally indistinguishable from contraception. It doesn't kill an individual like you or me; it merely prevents an individual like you or me from coming into existence.
Here is the potential relevance of this information to the OP. Most people do not struggle at all with the decision to use contraception, and yet these same people do sometimes struggle with the decision to have an abortion. They may be assuming that abortion kills an individual like you or me. But that's controversial! By recognizing this, the struggle may disappear (or become harder—depending on where one lands on the philosophical arguments).
Here is another issue to take into consideration. David Benatar holds a view similar to McMahan's when it comes to the moral status of the fetus, but since he independently argues that coming into existence is always a harm, he argues that it would actually be morally wrong to not have an early-term abortion. Some people experience guilt due to having an abortion. But if Benatar is correct, it really ought to be the other way around: people ought to experience guilt due to failing to have an abortion. See the chapter "Abortion: The 'Pro-Death' View" of his book: https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
Of course, these issues are much more complicated when it comes to late-term abortion, because it is plausible that whatever we are, we come into existence at some point during pregnancy. And once we exist, our deaths may be very bad for us. See the following: https://philosophybites.com/2017/04/shelly-kagan-on-death-and-deprivati.html
Some philosophers, such as McMahan, independently argue that late-term abortion and early infanticide are morally permissible (at least when a sufficiently strong interest is served in the process), but that gets into complicated issues about the badness of death and the right to life. Here is one perspective on that issue: https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP504/Michael%20Tooley,%20Abortion%20and%20infanticide.pdf
Fortunately for the OP, these ethical complications that arise with respect to late-term abortion presumably do not apply to the them, since the OP's pregnancy seems to be fairly early. However, these ethical complications do emphasize the potential importance of making a prompt decision.
This book. Fitting really
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
First, to add a bit of clarification to my OP comment. I don't think a fetus will become sentient until they are born. (https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/, https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/other-guidelines-and-reports/fetal-awareness-review-of-research-and-recommendations-for-practice/, https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.2035024) so the ability to have an abortion occur after the fetus becomes sentient will not happen. That being said, if it is shown that the fetus becomes sentient before birth then we are in the realm of the OP comment and its moral goodness.
While the fetus - now a sentient being/person in the womb who I will now call "offspring" to help highlight this distinction - is sentient and has sensory preferences for pleasure and avoidance of pain, the offspring does not have any preferences outside these two nor does the offspring have any interests (desires/hopes/dreams/aspiration/etc.) for any past/current/future point in time; meaning they cannot be deprived of anything other than the preferences of pleasure/pain. From birth onward, the offspring starts to have a wider range of preferences of pleasure/pain, will eventually start to have interests, and then experience the world as an average human does. We know that humans have a multitude of positivity biases (Pollyanna Principle, Dunning-Kruger Effect, Terror Management Theory, etc.) which makes the positives we experience seem better than they actually are (meaning that our lives are worse than we assess them to be). (https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265, https://youtu.be/S-HHWwsLsfU). Additionally, the bads have a greater effect on us than the goods do. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46608952\_Bad\_Is\_Stronger\_than\_Good). These points lead us to the conclusion that the positives promoted by the pro-lifer as justification for the potential future are not as good as stated in order to counter the objectively greater bads we will experience. Preventing further suffering from occurring while the offspring only has the most basic of preferences compared to doing nothing and allowing a greater amount/intensity of suffering to occur while having interests means that a premature death (in this case by means of abortion) is morally good. (https://jiwoonhwang.wordpress.com/2018/07/12/promortalism/, https://www.academia.edu/1532865/Better\_No\_Longer\_To\_Be)
There's a book I've been meaning to read for many years called <u>Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence</u> by David Benatar.
Antinatalism is a fringe belief and deservedly so. Nevertheless, I'm interested in reading this book... someday... because it (presumably) offers a rigorous argument for its views. Very intelligent, capable, highly educated people can have more than a high school understanding of logic and still believe things that the rest of us believe are utterly mad.
I'm not really trying to argue with you here. I just thought of that book when I read your comment.
Better Never to Have Been by David Benatar might elucidate some of your questions.
There are asskissers in APA (Psychiatrists and psychologists), and WHO especially in high positions, whose "scientific positions" are close government policy agenda.
Read these books written by academics (burried by the status quo) and remember that science progresses based on those who question it, not those who comply with:
-Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
Except for delusional/psychotic/brain disorders, diagnoses and drug prescriptions have increased at an exponential rate, compared to what could be justified by evolution or diagnostic accuracy. Drugs are being used to reduce emotional distress and motivation to rebel against systemic issues (you can't change your circumstances, just accept it). Suicide prevention is a failed policy addressing only the symptoms (suicide) and not the deeply structural issues that lead to suicide (poverty, etc). Executives of APA (Psychlogists and Psychoatrists) and WHO provide "scientific positions" that fit with government policy and corporate agenda. If there was real unconditional support, most people with mild/moderate severity would not need drugs or consider suicide (only to be held back by the fear of messing up and ending paralyzed, especially since access to lethal drugs was removed). Suicidal ideation is seen as a medical and not philosophical issue anymore, and sad/miserable people are seen as having a brain disorder instead of dissatisfaction with life. Whatever goes against social norms is a "conspiracy theory", unless proved true. For me, it is difficult not to be suspicious of the field given its past and that many people ask from professionals "my child is disobedient, can you make it listen?" "x does not want to go to school/work, can you help him go", "x is tired of life, can you make him stay". Mental health field works like a second police for non-compliant members of society. I am one of them and I have scrutinized the very field that was used against me and several other people who have "dysfunctional personalities". Sorry for the long text.
Read these books/articles written by academics (burried by the status quo) and remember that science progresses based on those who question it, not those who comply with:
-The Empty Promise of Suicide Prevention: Antidepressants can’t supply employment or affordable housing, repair relationships with family members or bring on sobriety : Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little extra serotonin.
-Why are people with mental illness excluded from the rational suicide debate?
https://www.upstate.edu/psych/pdf/szasz/hewitt-mental-illness-excluded.pdf
-Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
Exactly, that's why I am pretty angry. There asskissers in APA (Psychiatrists and psychologists), and WHO especially in high positions, whose scientific positions are close government policy agenda.
Read these books written by academics (burried by the status quo) and remember that science progresses based on those who question it, not those who comply with:
-Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
Science can be refuted with better science. Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz said that suicide is a philosophical, not a medical issue, unless a serious brain disorder is involved and you cannot diagnose everyone in the population with brain disorders who feel suicidal bc of this sick society. The reason these individuals react fiercely according to him is bc they perceive that their right to personhood has been violated (e.g. war on drugs, coercive suicide prevention, people with personality disorders coerced into things they don't like or go against their "dysfunctional personalities"). This is what makes people more antisocial and especially the work or starve culture, and that many people are born into poverty seeing others flaunting their wealth. Drugs are a natural outcome of existential boredom and a dystopian society, since people are trying to "distract" themselves.
Read these books written by academics and remember that science progresses based on those who question it, not those who comply with it:
-Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
Whatever goes against social norms is a "conspiracy theory", unless proved true. Read these books written by academics and remember that science progresses based on those who question it, not those who comply with:
-Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
Yes, but it would eliminate most forms of "mild and moderate" depression and anxiety disorder. Psychiatrists blur the lines between normal responses to distress and psychotic abonormal responses. Read these books written by academics and remember that science progresses based on those who question it, not those who comply with:
-Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
Fuck the medical status quo for forcing people live like that. Read these books about rational pessimism/suicide and slam them in their face:
-Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
Read these books about rational pessimism/suicide and slam them in their face:
-Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
Read these books about rational pessimism and slam them in the face of any professional who bs patients:
-Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
Read these books about rational pessimism and slam them in the face of any professional trying to change your mind: -Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
That's my own research that unfortunately no one recommended:
-Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
Read these POWERFUL books that therapists don't want you to discover:
-Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
-Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cracked-Psychiatry-Doing-More-Harm/dp/1848315562
-Suicide Prohibition: The Shame of Medicine
https://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Prohibition-Medicine-Thomas-Szasz/dp/0815609906
I am vegan, pro-choice. Brain activity is simply a precondition for other higher functions and does not prove that the offspring is sentient nor conscious. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml). Additionally, until birth the offspring is in a state of unconsciousness due to the low oxygen pressure, and the sleep-inducing neuroinhibitors allopregnanolone, pregnanolone, and prostaglandin D2 , and others produced by the placenta and the fetus itself. (https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165017305000214, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/, https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf). This means that the fetus cannot consciously experience pain or its surrounding environment (thus not needing analgesia during abortions) since it is unconscious and any reactions to stimuli are preprogrammed. (https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950, https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf). Also, the function of the active sleep state of the offspring is to create early “inner stimulation” to aid in the use of sensorimotor actions in the outside world and to regulate thalamocortical development rather than any actual experience being had by the offspring. (https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.2035024). All of this means that the offspring while in the womb is a continuously unconscious sentient being who will never have any past/present/future experiences and interests; this sentient being is indistinguishable from a non-sentient being; meaning that this being (the offspring) has no right to life. (https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/bioethics/resources/ethics-and-personhood/).
This is not an argument from Threshold nor from Function because it is not about how the offspring has not reached a certain “threshold” of development nor ability but rather that their external environment prevents certain experiences from occurring, which if the external environment was otherwise would not be a factor. (https://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/02/arguments-against-fetal-personhood.html). There is the additional factor that the offspring did not consent to being brought into existence but was forced to by the parents’ actions of sex (whether intentional or not). (https://youtu.be/5E2FPyk9MTU, https://youtu.be/zhFJ2azaQeU, https://youtu.be/NPzOOEkPNSA, https://youtu.be/JJZMTuuurBs, https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265). Thus, we have a scenario in which two people (the woman and the offspring) did not consent to being in this scenario. Thus, the single way to right both of the consent violations is for the woman to have an abortion. It cannot be said that a potential person has the right to life because only actual people have a right to life. (https://homeweb.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readings/160/marquis.html, https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/0521707684, https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/bioethics/resources/ethics-and-personhood/)
Since the offspring is a non-person with no previous/current/ interests, they have no interest in the future nor will they be deprived of anything if they cease to exist before gaining those interests in the future. Thus there is no wrongness in abortion since there is no person who is being deprived, no interests which are being violated, and no potential future which is being missed. (https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341621.001.0001/acprof-9780195341621, https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/0521707684).
If we use the same line of logic as the pro-lifer does concerning the future, abortion is also a loss of a future life consisting of bad conscious experiences which makes a premature death (i.e. by means of abortion) good.
Additionally, due to humans’ positive biases of social comparison (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/social-comparison-theory), the Pollyanna Principle (https://www.pnas.org/content/112/8/2389, https://positivepsychology.com/pollyanna-principle/, https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pollyanna-phenomenon-and-non-inferiority-how-our-experience-and-research-can-lead-to-poor-treatment-choices/, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231575506_Happiness_depression_and_the_Pollyanna_principle) the Dunning-Kruger Effect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123855220000056, https://youtu.be/kSsusGc0FVo, https://www.forbes.com/sites/markmurphy/2017/01/24/the-dunning-kruger-effect-shows-why-some-people-think-theyre-great-even-when-their-work-is-terrible/?sh=7166c2575d7cm, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/) and Terror Management Theory (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/terror-management-theory, http://ernestbecker.org/resources/terror-management-theory/, https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/social-psychology-theories/terror-management-theory/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065260108600167, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868309352321, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199828340/obo-9780199828340-0058.xml, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289309102_Thirty_Years_of_Terror_Management_Theory, https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128118443/handbook-of-terror-management-theory, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Handbook_of_Theories_of_Social_Psycholog/0QuyCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=terror+management+theory&pg=PA398&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), the positives which happen to us are less good than we judge them to be meaning that our lives are worse than we assess them to be. (https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265, https://youtu.be/S-HHWwsLsfU). Additionally, the bads have a greater effect on us than the goods do. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46608952_Bad_Is_Stronger_than_Good). These points lead us to the conclusion that the positives promoted by the pro-lifer as justification for the potential future are not as good as stated in order to counter the objectively greater bads we will experience, and that a premature death (i.e. by means of abortion) is preferable. (https://jiwoonhwang.wordpress.com/2018/07/12/promortalism/, https://www.academia.edu/1532865/Better_No_Longer_To_Be, https://youtu.be/4Cifcih7A4w, https://youtu.be/osnjC2yVkoI, https://youtu.be/tOsWhYDHkmc, https://youtu.be/yvM8tuMCsNk, https://youtu.be/C8b0Sf-E3a0, https://counterintuitive.home.blog/2019/11/01/promortalism-and-the-just-kill-yourself-argument/, https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/hume1757essay3.pdf).
> Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199549265/
glad someone said it.
few people seem to even contemplate the selfishness of having children, it's all just 'do I want this or do I want something else?', never 'what would be best for the child?'
“Creating new people, by having babies, is so much a part of human life that it is rarely thought even to require a justification. Indeed, most people do not even think about whether they should or should not make a baby. They just make one. In other words, procreation is usually the consequence of sex rather than the result of a decision to bring people into existence. Those who do indeed decide to have a child might do so for any number of reasons, but among these reasons cannot be the interests of the potential child. One can never have a child for that child’s sake.”
― prof. David Benatar
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
You asked me to repost my responses from your other thread to here, so here they are:
(1)
The position that it would be better to not exist at all, and therefore that it is better not to reproduce, is antinatalism. Look to the second-to-last paragraph in 2.1 here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/#MorPro
The classic contemporary antinatalist is David Benatar. His book, Better Never to Have Been:
His shorter, more recent book, The Human Predicament:
Regarding your question "If you could go back in time and persuade your parents out of giving birth to you - would you do it?", my answer is no. I do not think that "life is mostly suffering" necessarily leads to "it is better to not exist". There are many ways to respond to this kind of argument, but one way would simply be to point out the following: Let us grant that life is suffering (which is by no means proven). For us to say that this means it is better to not exist, we would have to account for why the existence of more suffering in our lives than pleasure (or lack of suffering, or whatever else) means that this life is net negative. For example, let us say that someone has 99 days of suffering, and one day of bliss. What is it that allows someone to say that this life is, on balance, negative? Why could the person not respond: "I'd happily have 99 days of suffering for one day of bliss". Furthermore, even if we said that 99 days of suffering and one day of bliss makes the life on balance negative, why would this mean that this negative life is better to never have been? Perhaps a negative life is a better state of events than the lack of a life.
All I'm pointing out with this discussion (which is, as most things are, also open to objections) is that it cannot be a simple case of "life is suffering, therefore it's better to never have existed". For this argument to work you have to answer questions like the ones I just gave above.
Argument 6:
Assessment of whether it would have been better to have never been is complicated.
For a single trace of consciousness -- nominally a person -- through a time window beginning at some point during gestation and ending at brain death, a sampling of phenomenological frames may exhibit dispositions ranging the gambit from strongly against to strongly in favor of non-existence. Is it enough to only once prefer non-existence? Should a non-existence preference be the dominant valence over time? If preferences are tied to beliefs which vary in truth-value, should we give exclusive, or more weight to preferences that correspond with true and justified beliefs?
The argument as stated is too narrow if harm footprints that implicate other sentient beings count. Insofar that my existence entails that other human or non-human animals experience more suffering -- even so far as that it would be better for them to prefer non-existence -- it seems they would have a preference for my non-existence. It's not at all obvious we should exclude the preferences of other beings towards our non-existence when our existence degrades theirs.
Ought-prescriptive statements about existence being better or worse than non-existence require value judgments and take us back into normative ethics where we are going to face an ostensible inability to move from descriptive premises to prescriptive conclusions. Here, if both parties can agree to primary values or a value hierarchy and normative ethical system such as negative utilitarianism, persuasive work can be done -- otherwise, it's just making arguments for the benefit of another audience that holds these in common, which may be a worthwhile goal.
Antifrustrationism is a philosophical position that prioritizes minimizing frustrated preferences over maximizing satisfied preferences. This sometimes comes up in Efilism where it is argued that it's better to not have lacks or absences that require satisfaction in the first place.
Peter Wessel Zapffe makes an interesting account of how humans navigate the antagonisms and contradictions of a life in a materialist universe where immanent futility, vast suffering, and meaninglessness threaten to unravel our optimism and hope.
I think there is a fair bit of evidence that humans have biases -- in both directions, but perhaps dominantly optimistic. Benatar's full treatment of how we are prone to overestimate the goodness of our life is worth reading (see below for link to book).
Zapffe's philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe
https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/The_Last_Messiah
Better Never to Have Been - Benatar
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
Antifrustrationism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifrustrationism
https://www.fehige.info/pdf/A_Pareto_Principle_for_Possible_People.pdf
EDIT: rename Zappfe -> Zapffe
>is existential anguish preferable to death?
Not for everyone, no.
>Everyone goes through the former once in a while,
Some people think about it constantly and not everyone's life quality allows them to not do so. These people may or may not have access to therapy or coping mechs or honestly may just not have the emotional effort left to bother with more work for more life....where things improve a bit and then go back to being shit
>How can you classify death as a net benefit when you don't even know what happens after it?
If this is an honest question and not just a rhetorical one used for emphasis, (I don't mean to sound rude. It's just internet and I want to be clear before I launch into information).... I would suggest the ideal state is to not ever exist to begin with, because that circumvents all the problems associated with how to die or if to die, etc., as well as all the pain and suffering of living.
If this is a real question, and you're open to hearing another perspective, I would also suggest checking out this book: Better Never to Have Been (https://www.amazon.ca/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265)
It's true. It is difficult to assess if death is preferable to life--even if life is trauma, sadness, poverty, disease, and various assorted climate crises and miseries-- because after life is unknown and unfortunately it comes without a trial period.
But at some points folks are suffering so much in being alive that they are willing to take that risk. And considering I do not own anyone else's life or body but my own, I would say they have the right to risk that as they choose. I would not believe myself a higher knowledge over what is right for them in managing their own pain of being alive.
>The vast majority of suicidal tendencies are caused by psychiatric diseases. It is highly likely that your own body is saying it.
Two scenarios.
1) Let's say I agree it's disease based.
This is still dismissing the question of why a human is not allowed to choose for themself that they no longer wish to exist.
What if they don't want to do the work to "heal"? What if they want a life free of meds and if not just want to die? What if the condition is why they wish to die?
Do people with mental health issues become wards of the state, unable to make any choices for their own life? Do they become property and not people?
It's one thing to decide that someone with hallucinations should not drive. Another entirely to say they are not allowed to choose what to eat, their hair color... Or if they exist or not.
What if it is a symptom, but the condition doesn't permit them the ability of becoming "better" because the trauma was so severe? As a society do we really prefer to keep people alive and suffering for decades, than let them die in peace?
*also if people had more reliable accessible methods there would be no stories from folks who survived an attempt. They would just be able to be free. This also doesn't take into account the people who make multiple attempts because *it doesn't just get better. And sometimes the idea of working to prove to others you are "better" is safer/ less painful than risking another attempt that may leave you dismembered but still alive. Or imprisoned. Or in a psychiatric institute.
Also the idea of making this available would likely allow suicide to skyrocket for a time. But after that point...it would likely just be a comfort. A back up plan just in case. I cannot even tell you how many people I've spoken to, back when I was a student...at numerous jobs...who have 'joked' that if they just had the option they would feel less trapped in life.
Sometimes it's just good to know it's an option.
2) Let's say I disagree it's solely disease based.
the idea that humans are endlessly resilient and do not have a max point is wrong. The same as bones break, so too can mind and spirit from daily systemic abuses like racism, poverty, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia....etc. The daily experience of life for some humans may be so painful they do not have the coping mechanisms or the control over others to make the suffering stop.
the above are not interior biological structure based issues-- though prolonged trauma does rewire the brain--so much as systemic ones that are symptomatic of being a human. Greed. Political unrest. Financial instability. Infidelity. Loneliness due to social restrictions. To say nothing of natural disasters.
To say that to be suicidal in the world as it is right now, is unreasonable and is based on pathology.... is to be Either 1) so out of touch with reality or 2) so privileged to have nothing to worry about in the current global landscape, that I almost don't know what to say.
It's called antinatalism. Go read a book or something.
To be born. Well that’s what David Benatar claims one this book.
It’s better to have never been severely physically disabled instead of later in life.
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265?tag=thneyoamp-20
For the price of $32, you can become a brooding, philosophical cop who hates everybody
Try amazon smile to donate to a charity of your choice automatically at no cost to you!
https://smile.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
^^^I'm ^^^a ^^^bot ^^^and ^^^this ^^^action ^^^was ^^^performed ^^^automatically.
A book you might be interested in: Better to Never Have Been
Het verbaast me niet dat sommige mensen zijn geschrokken van mijn post en/of daar enigszins verwante negatieve gevoelens bij hebben (zoals afschuw of zelfs angst). Denkbeelden en posts zoals de mijne kan men over het algemeen kenmerken als antinatalistisch (zie ook /r/antinatalism).
Zo kort mogelijk gezegd, beschouwt het antinatalisme het leven als een tranendal, omdat het compleet onmogelijk is voor een levend wezen om niét in contact te komen met één of meerdere vormen van leed (en daar vervolgens negatief door beïnvloed te worden). Hierdoor is het leven in feite onlosmakelijk verbonden met leed: ze gaan hand in hand met elkaar. Leed is uiteraard onwenselijk en moet zoveel mogelijk worden vermeden. Hieruit volgt dan dat het beter is om nooit geboren te worden en dus ook dat het egoïstisch en onethisch zou zijn om iemand willens en wetens ter wereld te brengen, want dan wordt een onschuldig levend wezen zonder zijn toestemming blootgesteld aan dat leed en daardoor beschadigd (vaak voor het leven getekend; je hoort niet voor niets dat iedereen blijvende maar onzichtbare littekens heeft). Als het mogelijk was geweest om het héle leven te doorlopen zonder ooit in contact te komen met enige vorm van leed, had het antinatalisme nooit bestaan. Maar dat is helaas niet zo, dus bestaat het.
Verder plaatst men in het antinatalisme de belangen van het potentiële kind vóór dat van de potentiële ouder, wat gezien het bovenstaande heel begrijpelijk is. Beide concepten druisen rechtstreeks in tegen onze biologie (specifiek het overlevings- en voortplantingsinstinct) en de algemeen heersende denk- en wereldbeelden die daar (zowel direct als indirect) uit zijn voortgevloeid. Het gros van de mensen ervaart deze concepten dan ook als bedreigend, want ze willen zich zo min mogelijk bewust zijn van de lelijke kanten van het leven (bijvoorbeeld omdat het leven anders ondraaglijk zou worden voor hen) en ze willen zichzelf ook niets ontzeggen waar zij persoonlijk voordeel of plezier uit zouden kunnen halen (wat gerelateerd is aan het aangeboren egoïsme dat in de natuur altijd noodzakelijk is geweest voor de overlevingsstrijd). Dat kan variëren tot relatief nietszeggende zaken tot grote en belangrijke zaken zoals klimaatverandering en kinderen. De gemiddelde mens wil niets inleveren of opofferen voor het grotere goed en is dus geneigd om zijn eigenbelang vóór alles te plaatsen. Bij klimaatverandering hebben ze bijvoorbeeld het liefst dat anderen voor de kosten opdraaien (ondanks het feit dat ze zelf ook hun hele leven lang hebben bijgedragen aan milieuvervuiling).
Wat kinderen betreft: die moéten en zúllen ze krijgen. Bijvoorbeeld omdat ze dat plezier niet willen missen of omdat ze willen dat hun genetische erfenis voortleeft (wat tot op zekere hoogte een illusie is, want per generatie halveert de hoeveelheid DNA die van jou afkomstig is en dus blijft er na zo'n 2 à 3 eeuwen weinig wezenlijks van jouw DNA over). Ongeacht de prijs moeten deze wensen worden vervuld - ook als dit ten koste gaat van de levenskwaliteit en toekomst van het kind. Daarom zijn er mensen die tóch kinderen krijgen wanneer ze diep in de schulden zitten, wanneer zij en hun partner een chronische ziekte hebben die hun kind vrijwel zeker óók zal krijgen, en wanneer de levensvatbaarheid van de aarde ernstig in gevaar is. Allemaal dingen die haaks staan op wat een liefhebbende (potentiële) ouder hoort te doen en willen voor zijn kinderen. Dat valt toch niet met elkaar te rijmen?
Maar o wee als daar ooit vraagtekens bij worden gesteld, laat stáán dat ze daar verantwoording over moeten afleggen (al was het maar aan de kinderen zélf) - dan is juist de persoon die dat ter discussie stelt de zieke en egoïstische geest! Als hun kind degene is die dat doet, zullen ze emotionele manipulatie ook zeker niet schuwen. "Ik ben je vader/moeder en heb álles voor je gedaan! Hoe dúrf je, je breekt mijn hart!" (heeft het kind nooit om gevraagd; dat was de keuze van de ouders en dus hún verantwoording en schuld). Je ziet vergelijkbare taferelen bij adoptie- en donorkinderen die erachter willen komen waar ze precies vandaan komen. Zij kunnen daar veel tegenwerking bij ondervinden, zeker wanneer het gaat om anonieme zaaddonors (zoals recentelijk in het nieuws is geweest). Ze worden dan afgepoeierd met holle frasen als "Wees blij dat je leeft en bent opgevoed door liefdevolle ouders die je álles hebben gegeven, meer heb je niet nodig!" Het is daar héél duidelijk te zien dat het belang van het onschuldige kind altijd ondergeschikt is geweest aan het belang van de ouder. Naar mijn mening is dat onethisch en niet goed te praten. Gelukkig begint dit in het geval van adoptie- en donorkinderen al te veranderen, maar het gaat moeizaam - veel moeizamer dan het zou moeten zijn.
Ik ben een beetje afgedwaald, dus ik ga nu meteen weer terug naar het antinatalisme. Hoe impopulair het ook is voor het grote publiek, het is een legitieme levensvisie waar al heel wat boeken over zijn gepubliceerd. Eén van de bekendste is Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence van de Zuid-Afrikaanse professor David Benatar. Voor een korte en algemene indruk van Benatar's ideeën kun je dit interview met hem lezen. Het hoeft dus niet zo te zijn dat mensen met antinatalistische ideeën depressief zijn of een traumatische jeugd hebben gehad. Het is heel goed mogelijk om zulke dingen nooit te hebben meegemaakt en toch tot de conclusie te komen dat het beter is om nooit geboren te worden - bijvoorbeeld door simpelweg te observeren hoe de wereld werkt. Overigens is depressie ook niet altijd een indicatie van ziekte (en dus als teken dat iemands visie niet serieus dient te worden genomen), want depressie kan ook een rationele en natuurlijke reactie zijn - bijvoorbeeld op een volstrekt onnatuurlijke en ongezonde situatie. Daarnaast is er ook nog zoiets als depressief realisme. Het is té makkelijk om antinatalisten weg te zetten als depressieve mensen en daarmee ook als mensen die niet helder kunnen nadenken en dus niet ertoe doen.
> Maar ik ben toch blij dat ik er bij ben, op deze planeet. Het kan zo mooi zijn hier, de natuur, verliefd worden, houden van je kinderen, iets doen waarmee je iemand laat lachen of iemand een beetje gelukkiger maakt, dromen, muziek.. Die kleine beetjes mooi maken voor mij het allemaal waard. Als je dat niet meer kan zien, wil je er dan misschien over praten, waarom?
Ik vind het heel erg voor je dat je zo'n traumatische jeugd hebt gehad en ik heb er diep respect voor dat je ondanks die ontzettend moeilijke start niet alleen een goed en functioneel leven hebt opgebouwd, maar ook nog in staat bent gebleven om moois te blijven zien in het leven. Heel veel mensen in vergelijkbare situaties zijn daar nooit in geslaagd, iets wat hen overigens ook niet aan te rekenen is. Over sommige dingen komt een mens zelfs met de beste professionele hulp nooit heen, zeker als deze een karakter heeft dat het veel moeilijker maakt om trauma's te verwerken (bijvoorbeeld een heel gevoelig en meelevend karakter; dan komen trauma's harder binnen dan bij mensen die van nature minder emotioneel zijn ingesteld). Sociaal wordt dat echter niet helemaal geaccepteerd, want doorgaans hoort men vooral over de inspirerende succesverhalen - de mensen die er uiteindelijk aan onderdoor gaan worden óf weggemoffeld óf tot op zekere hoogte veroordeeld (zeker als ze ervoor kiezen om uit het ongevraagde leven te stappen). Hierdoor krijgt de doorsnee mens tot op zekere hoogte ook een vertekend beeld van hoe realistisch het wérkelijk is om zulke trauma's te kunnen overwinnen. Zo kan het bijvoorbeeld zijn dat je eerder de uitzondering op de regel bent dan de norm. Dus het feit je jouw jeugd achter je hebt kunnen laten, zegt vooral iets jezélf - niet zozeer iets over andere getraumatiseerde mensen en in welke mate ze hun trauma's kunnen overwinnen. Ik weet dat je je post niet zo bedoeld hebt, maar ik zeg het maar even voor de lezers die jouw situatie meteen als lichtend voorbeeld (en argument tegen antinatalisme) zien van hoe het leven ondanks ernstige trauma's tóch nog mooi en de moeite waard is.
Wat betreft de mooie dingen van het leven: die zie ik zeker ook, maar ze wegen niet op tegen alle slechte dingen die het leven met zich meebrengt. De slechte dingen hebben een véél grotere impact en nasleep dan de goede dingen. Met andere woorden: de goede dingen zijn vluchtig en oppervlakkig, terwijl de slechte dingen langdurig zijn en ook diep gaan. Een klein voorbeeld: iemand die je 's morgens in de ochtendrukte met een kwade blik aankijkt en je héél hardhandig opzijduwt zal je langer nablijven of achtervolgen dan iemand die 's morgens in de ochtendrukte met een glimlach zomaar een deur voor je openhoudt. Het eerste kan meteen je hele dag verpesten, maar het tweede zal er niet zo snel voor zorgen dat je dag niet meer stuk kan. Als je goed kijkt, zie je dit concept overal in het leven terug. Eén traumatische gebeurtenis uit je jeugd kan je bijvoorbeeld de rest van je leven met je meedragen, terwijl de meest fantastische gebeurtenis uit je jeugd je niet dusdanig positief voor de rest van je leven zal beïnvloeden. Je zult het je vast en zeker altijd herinneren, maar de impact zal niet zo diep en langdurig zijn als die van de traumatische gebeurtenis. Zo gaat het met alles. En als het goede dus altijd minder gewicht in de schaal legt dan het slechte, is het beter voor een kind om nooit geboren te worden. Beter om nooit kennis te maken met slecht én goed, dan weet te hebben van beide maar uiteindelijk altijd het meest te worden beïnvloed door het slechte (oftewel het lijden).
>What makes you think the suffering isn't worth it?
Well, this book provides arguments in favour of my point of view. But of course I don't think it's never worth it; merely that in most cases it isn't worth it. In the end of it all we are still all monkeys and our exchange proves it - you were so quick to jump to aggression and narcissism about your superior genes and my supposedly inferior ones. Don't mean it as an insult, actually I think it's quite a natural behavior which is part of why I'd rather not bring more people into this world or species. Humans are inherently vile and violent, the last century proved it well enough. It's always one surviving at the expense of another and I don't wish my children to be either of those - oppressor or a victim, both are bad enough to love through.
My genes might be damaged, then the best course of action is not to pass them; if they are not damaged, I'd rather not to pass them still, lest potential thousands of my descendants would have to go through survival and death.
Also, even if someone's genes were really superior, one should always keep in mind the existence of regression towards the mean which basically means an exceptional parent tends to gave mediocre children still (just like Einstein did). And to truly spread your genes you would need to have a great many of children. Suppose you have a boy X*Y* and a girl XX. Then your son proceeded to have a child of his own: two daughters XX and XX. Hey share zero genes with you. And your daughter had two sons XY and XY. One of them shares with you 50% of their genes, but the other shares zero, because they inherited not your X chromosome, but that of your wife.
Here I assume you are a man and your chromosomes are in bold. That is the situation for your sex chromosome. With autosomal genes it's different: your input just gets diminished with each passing generations until you are as related to your grand-grand-... - children as to any stranger out there.
So you see, that legacy is tricky and is generally more up to chance than anything else.
David Benatar is pretty well known for explicitly arguing that having children is unethical (see his *Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence)
Peter Singer is phenomenal for his breadth of topics, he does discuss the ethics of overpopulation and consumption fairly regularly (see this little speech or his book <em>The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty</em>).
Other than that, as TychoCelchuuu suggests, the SEP is a good place to start.
This would just reinforce the idea that some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
If you haven't already read it, 'Better Never to Have Been' by David Benatar, is a very thought provoking book on the subject.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
>Nobody's saying "we need more abortions! Abortions are great!"
> Please stop downvoting me if it is indeed you. I think I'm making some philosophically coherent points, ones which have been used in publishable papers. And downvoting makes me not allowed to reply quickly
I'm glad you said something since I wasn't paying attention to the votes. No, it's definitely not me and I agree with you that your posts should have not been downvoted (even though we don't agree). I find it shuts down dialog, fosters hostile feelings, etc. I basically never downvote anyone unless it's ridiculously obvious trolling.
> If anything I feel that your rigid attachment to the horror of painless death is arbitrary, and based on a gut feeling rather than a coherent thought. [...] Yes but if death is a purely bad thing
I'm not sure how I gave that impression, but it wasn't intentional. I don't think death is inherently bad. In some situations (a very bad life) death could absolutely be preferable.
I also just want to clarify: I personally am essentially a plain utilitarian — with some modifications. I've had a lot of conversations going in this thread so I can't recall if I've already gone into more detail. Feel free to ask me if you want me to do so.
> Most animals, on account of their not being self aware and so couldn't possibly have preferences for themselves in the future since the concept of themselves in the future does not exist for them, do not have their preferences defeated in the future.
They might not have an explicit preference for doing things next week or whatever, but they have preferences for doing things: eating preferred foods, preferred social interactions, etc. Aren't all those preferences defeated when you kill the animal? And if so, why are those preferences in a separate category that has no weight while only an explicit preference to do something in the future is important to you?
> every decision to have a child would be wrong because it's better to never exist and never have anything bad happen to you
David Benatar wrote a book with almost that same title. I haven't read it, only about it, but I agree with a lot of the main points. Although not for the reason you expected (inherent badness of death).
For individuals, I think it is better not to exist: if you didn't exist, it wouldn't be meaningful to talk about depriving a non-existent thing of pleasure or violating its preferences, for it has none. However, realizing existence definitely will cause suffering. So because of that asymmetry, one cannot count the count but one must account for the bad and bringing individuals into that situation seems much less justifiable. (Bad summary of one of his arguments.)
I don't really agree with the idea that we should go extinct though. If you want, I can go into more detail.
> If you want me to try and justify preference utilitarianism we'll be here a long time. Peter Singer bases his entire veganism
Didn't he go back to normal Utilitarianism?
1.You should consider reading this article by an academic philosopher examining the arguments that are commonly given in favor of procreation. The section "3. The General Argument from Duty to Others" is particularly relevant:
>On the specific claim that there might be a duty to one’s parents, Overall is equally dismissive. Partly for the reasons just cited but also because if the belief is that one needs to honour and respects one’s parents, then there are perfectly good ways to do that without entailing the same level of moral risk and responsibility. One could, for example, provide them with care when they need it; help them achieve and perpetuate other values; encourage their life endeavours and so on.
If you're into this kind of stuff, then you might want to check out David Benatar's book Better Never To Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence.
2.This is the fallacy of relative privation, otherwise known as the 'starving children in Africa' fallacy. In short, the existence of more important problems elsewhere in the world doesn't diminish the importance of your own concerns and desires.
Here's a book I once read in my philosophy class. Strongly suggest it.
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
No, since death itself also causes suffering. Live happily, the best you can, doing the best for yourself and others. But at the same time, do not impose suffering on the innocent. Here's a book for you: https://www.amazon.com.br/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
>Hoping for a car to run you over is not going to help you or your family.
No it wont help my family; they'd hate to have to pay my half of the rent. but it would help me. I bought this book the other day.
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
and its all making a lot of sense to me know. it's like its all coming together for the first time in my life.
/r/Antinatalism's Wiki presents the basic arguments better than I can. But reading https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265 may be obligatory for more details.
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
Bring the down votes.
> He only seems to troll subreddits like this one and ForeverAlone to make himself feel better by comparing to all the "losers", freaks, outcasts, etc.
If I'm a troll, I'm a bizarrely useful one. Almost like I'm... not trolling? :O [Gasps] Could it be???
> while reveling in the fact that he makes almost 6-figures at 20, having had girlfriends, fucked prostitutes
I appreciate your knowledge of my life details. It actually does make me feel nice.
> being some badass, alpha male MGTOW who got a vasectomy because kids will get in the way of him being the ultimate Chad
I'm grinning pretty hard. If you want to know why I do things, you can just ask me, you know. I don't bite (except in bed, but don't judge me).
Despite the material benefits of the vasectomy (sex with many more women, avoiding marriage, gold-diggers having no interest in me for romance, millions of dollars), my main motivation is that I think creating new people is morally wrong.
I'm not doing this to someone else.
I asked for opinions not answers. It's a subject I've been thinking about for over a year. I read this book and found it interesting and almost unquestionable (https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265). Thank you for trying to discount me
This comment doesn't have to do with the OP's post, but I think people who don't have children are probably better parents than those that do. That includes my own (parents).
Is there a non-selfish reason for having children to begin with? Hell do most parents even ask themselves if they should have children? Doubtful, people just have them w/o any thought for the children.
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
>Most people believe that they were either benefited or at least not harmed by being brought into existence. Thus, if they ever do reflect on whether they should bring others into existence---rather than having children without even thinking about whether they should---they presume that they do them no harm. Better Never to Have Been challenges these assumptions. David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence. Drawing on the relevant psychological literature, the author shows that there are a number of well-documented features of human psychology that explain why people systematically overestimate the quality of their lives and why they are thus resistant to the suggestion that they were seriously harmed by being brought into existence.The author then argues for the 'anti-natal' view---that it is always wrong to have children---and he shows that combining the anti-natal view with common pro-choice views about foetal moral status yield a "pro-death" view about abortion (at the earlier stages of gestation). Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct. Although counter-intuitive for many, that implication is defended, not least by showing that it solves many conundrums of moral theory about population.
Eventually maybe, but advocating for it in the current context appears to assume that mayor ecological desasters are primarily a matter of some kind of overpopulation. I think this assumption is wrong, and ecological problems are instead much closer tied to the problems inherent to capitalism. Also almost all current shortages of resources are due to commodification of goods much rather than objective physical scarcity.
Besides that point, I’d personally be much more intrigued by a zero-child rule, though not because of ecological or economic considerations or even plain misanthropy.
This book is for you.
> No need to worry about hypothetical people who never existed.
While I admit that this seems intuitive, this very point is hotly debated among philosophers. On one side is this, and you can easily google responses to that book that argue the other side, if you feel so inclined.
You're welcome. Try this instead:
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
And clearly your parents did a great job at raising a polite kid. Bravo.
Popular alternatives to Better Never to Have Been: ...
The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Children’s Health Defense)
The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Children’s Health Defense)
