I’m not saying we should be throwing you a ticker tape parade for not committing murders (although if the evidence showed that ticker tape parades had a real world effect on preventing people from committing murder, I’d say it might be worth looking into). We don’t have to get all excited about it. What I am saying is that it’s morally preferable and doing the morally preferable thing is “good.”
Statistics are not that simple. Let’s say we ask 100 people “How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 5 (the worst, below average, average, above average, or the best)?” and they truthfully answer: 15 say 1, 80 say 4, and 5 say 5. The average is 3.6; 85% said they were above average and they are! It can be right.
I suppose the surveys could have been more specific (“above the median”), but I think it’s still clear that most people have an inflated opinion of themselves that’s not neccesarily based on facts. I recall reading that 2/3rds of drivers thought they were better drivers than most!
If you bring the religious aspect into this (assuming a standard heaven/hell religion, which most of them are), then the OP’s point is even stronger.
An existance in which significant people born will eventually suffer eternal pain has a strong moral imperative to keep people from being born and potentially suffering it. Eternal punishment and pain is so bad that it defies human comprehension. It’s infinitely worse than anything we can conceive. And yet religious parents happily procreate knowing that they could end up being responsible for causing this. It’s disgusting.
Depending on your views, this punishment is inflicted on a small minority of people ranging to the vast majority. It doesn’t really matter - even one person suffering eternal pain is too much to be offset by any amount of good or pleasure. It trumps everything else. It is better for no one to have ever existed than for anyone to suffer that.
But what if, instead of stabbing my coworker to death, I just punch him once in the head? That’s certainly morally preferrable to stabbing him to death. Does that make punching him “good?”
I think existing is better than not existing. Thus the child benefits from procreation.
Is a conceptual apple better than a real apple? no the second is superior because it is exists.
You have the added difficulty of the fact that you can’t form much of a hereditary position. I’m telling you, martyrdom is the way to get attention.
You’re still missing the point. Most people think they’re happier than average. Statistically, this may not be possible, but it doesn’t therefore follow that these people are really unhappy. Happiness isn’t graded on a curve. The number of other people in the world who are happier or unhappier than me, does not effect how happy I am. Comparing happiness to driving is particularly inapt, because happiness is a purely internal state for which there is no external metric. We can measure how good a driver is by examining the number of accidents they get into, or how often they’re fined for traffic violations. The only way we can measure how happy someone is, is by asking them. If most people say they’re happier than average, that means that most people are, in fact, happy, and think themselves lucky to be so happy. It doesn’t mean that they’re really miserable, and are only fooling themselves.
It could mean that they are lying though; saying they are happy when they aren’t, perhaps because that’s how they think they are supposed to feel.
Or they may think the default state of humanity is pretty miserable, but they’re less miserable than most.
But the test has no way of determining what the respondents’ actual happiness level is; it cannot possibly be taken as providing, in itself, evidence that these people are lying about their actual happiness level. It only shows that their statements about how their happiness level compares to the median are incorrect. As everyone has been pointing out, it is much more likely that the respondents are simply mistaken as to what the median happiness level is than that they are mistaken as to what their own happiness level is.
Somehow, edits I made to the above post got fucked up. Here’s the intended version:
But the test has no way of determining what the respondents’ actual happiness level is; it cannot possibly be taken as providing, in itself, evidence that these people are lying about their actual happiness level. It only shows that their statements about how their happiness level compares to the median are incorrect. You present one possible explanation for this, but there are others. Regardless, in response to the OP’s inference, it should be pointed out, as everyone has been pointing out, that it is much more likely that the respondents are simply mistaken as to what the median happiness level is than that they are mistaken as to what their own happiness level is.
I’d argue with the central premise that the asymetry exists. Why assume pain and pleasure operate by different rules? If “the presence of pain is bad” and “the presence of pleasure is good” and “the absence of pain is good”, why suddenly abandon the symetry that is forming? Assume “the absence of pleasure is bad” is true unless proven otherwise. People should take positive steps to create pleasure and an opportunity to create pleasure should not be forsaken. And having children, which creates the possibility of them experiencing a good life, is such an opportunity.
It’s a very hedonistic mindset to simplify pain bad pleasure good.
Obviously some people are going to take the rejection of this asymmetry as a moral axiom. But the duty to avoid causing other people pain strikes me as more urgent than the duty to make people happy (or in this case, make happy people). There’s also a certain intolerable threshhold of badness that can be inflicted on someone that cannot be justified, even if it makes other people happy. Even if only a minority of humans experience an intolerable amount of suffering, I’d say it’s always better to err on the side of caution by not making new humans. Most of the people we create may not regret their lives, but the people we don’t create definitely won’t regret not being created.
I think you have to assume that pain and pleasure have some existence as independant qualities, otherwise the whole issue is meaningless. If pain and pleasure only exist as they are experienced by human beings, then they don’t really exist at all. If I hit my thumb with a hammer today, I’m experiencing pain. But by tomorrow, the pain will be gone. If pain only exists as an experience, then it is strictly transient (as is pleasure). All pain and all pleasure inevitably become non-existent, so what point is there in discussing the moral issues of these transient sensations? Any pain you create is just going to cease to exist anyway so what’s the moral cost of creating pain? If I slapped you in the face yesterday, the pain is gone now. So what moral difference is there between me having slapped you and me not having slapped you?
The only way creating pain has a moral value is if you assume that the pain you created has a moral effect that outlasts the experience of the pain itself. In other words, that pain (and pleasure) has an independant existence seperate from the person who experiences it at the time it occurs. And if that’s the case, that the absense of pleasure is just as bad as the existence of pain.
Not exactly. The Cathars didn’t have an issue with creating new lives because the kid could someday end up in hell, but because the flesh (and more generally the world) was the creation of the evil demiurge, so you were playing in his hands by giving birth to human beings.
That’s simply the original argument repeated with the existence of Heaven and Hell added in. What do you have to claim that the avoidance of Hell outweights the achievement of Heaven? All you offer is a bit of verbal trickery, not exactly solid ground for demanding the extermination of humanity.
In fairness, we should mention that the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing beat the Anti-Natalists to the punch on not procreating, even if it was for a different motivation…
Mr Benatar’s case for following in the footsteps of the Shakers’ proscription against reproducing rests, interestingly, on a reasonably opposite premise: Hedonism is the greatest good. Since perfect pleasure is not easily achievable, we should therefore stop creating beings unable to attain such a state.
The human race has voted with it’s feet, so to speak. Within reason almost all adults who have a choice, choose life over suicide, and for the most part do so not because they have been cajoled out of suicide but because they prefer to be alive than not. It is easy to show that an existing human endures more pain than one who has never existed. The vote is already in over whether this is a greater good. Apparently it is, and therefore the notion that perfect pleasure is the greatest good is wrong.
It’s fairly obvious that whatever it is that being alive offers seems to outweigh the bad stuff for most people.
Perhaps Mr Benatar should refine his position from Radical Anti-Natalism to More Easily-Effected Suicide.
Benatar does admit that suicide may in fact be more rational in many cases than continuing to exist. But since the issue involves our own lives, it’s a mistake we should be allowed to make.
However, you cannot contain consent from someone before you create them.
To say that it’s ok to procreate on the assumption that they can simply kill themselves later ignores the fact that suicide will cause immense pain to loved ones. This places a key obstacle in the way of suicide and is kind of a “trap” for people who otherwise would have ended their lives. Potential procreators would do well to consider this.