Better Never to Have Been:

[SIZE=6] The Harm of Coming into Existence:

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.

[ATTACH=full]10352[/ATTACH]





"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain.













[/SIZE]

I get the feeling that Trump and like-minded fellows would think this book was written by someone who works at Planned Parenthood :D:D:D:D

When I was younger I used to ponder a lot on such issues, though not at this level and still be back to where I started, more confused with more questions rather than answers, but today with the responsibilities of providing for the family and conforming to societal expectations I find this all too philosophical. However as I age and get closer to my grave I guess I will have to face these thoughts… I just hope it will not be too late t make significant changes towards a freer if there is such a word being

But then again for lack of a better alternative I will settle for what Mark Twain and those of his school of thought have resigned to … Graph Imechorwa

The cul de sac is that you have to first exist for the argument of benefit or detriment in regard to self to begin. The greatest pain in life, provided all basic needs and health, is the need to conform to the expectations of the group/society. Unfortunately, the need to conform or to be seen in certain light is innate/inbuilt to some degree. You only need not to take it to heights that most people do.
Imagine a person who doesnt know that other people have a mind and therefore has no need to influence perceptions.
The fact is that nature organizes society to favor survival of a group not individuals. Individuals can suffer or die for the sake of the group.
If you examine your life carefully, you will notice that you have structured your life not upon your own thoughts or mind, but upon other people’s expectations. The pressure to be perceived in certain way brings most pain. Were it not for that, life would be better. Unfortunately, the whole thing is genetic and if you do not use your thinking to limit it you are going to go overboard and forget yourself.

2 Likes