There was an article in the Irish Times yesterday about a philosopher who argues that it is cruel to have children.

Quote :

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.

Now, Reville the science editor is quite dismissive. But he's always had a problem with anything too materialist like this. He suggests that the message advocates suicide, something the author rejects.

Anyway, what do we think? I personally don't think of life in a pros vs. cons kind of way. Is there anything in life that says it neccessarily has to be full of loveliness? According to this philosopher my parents were being cruel to me. I wouldn't have thought so. But then they were being cruel to me by having me baptised if Dawkins is to be believed. Where would I be without these complete strangers to look out for me? I think I heard once that in France a child with a disability of some sort has a 'right to die'.

Jesus was your man having a bad day when he wrote his thesis or what. Is it a useful question? Not really. It also assumes that life sucks in general I think and though mine does at the moment I don't think in general it sucks ... perhaps.

The First Great Truth of Buddhism is that life is suffering so if you believe that then he's making sense to you but isn't there something peculiar about people and our consciousness of this type of thing? Animals don't existentially doubt themselves, do they? Our consciousness is great but it could bring us problems if misused.

Your man needs a therapist.

Here's the link to the IT article: Philosopher makes a case against human existence.

I suspect Reville hasn't gone much further than the OUP's description of the book, though I don't know where he got his info on the author's stance on suicide.

As for ther book itself, it has the great merit of raising a very basic issue (the intrinsic value of human existence), which is usually assumed but rarely discussed in philosophical terms. Thus, it may be hoped that this book will encourage a thoughtful and rich exchange of ideas on such a fundamental question. Okay, I lifted that from the OUP's website: http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199296422

905 wrote:

As for ther book itself, it has the great merit of raising a very basic issue (the intrinsic value of human existence), which is usually assumed but rarely discussed in philosophical terms.

I ended up being a fan of John Searle after reading to and fro between philosophers who believed x and y but at bottom they are hinting at something else - usually whether God exists or not but why wouldn't they come out and say it? As Reville says

Quote :

To me it is an extreme example of the crazy conclusion you can reach at the end of an orderly sequence of seemingly rational steps in a materialistic philosophy. I accept, of course, that you can also reach a crazy endpoint using a non-materialistic philosophy, although it would have a different flavour to Benatar's endpoint.

I think Searle would agree with Reville that it's a nonsense question but maybe he'd go one step further and suggest psychiatry.

Why should the intrinsic value of human existence be an 'issue' and not a 'phenomenon'? Can't we study this in scientific terms? John Searle would take a position of 'biological realism' I think he used to call it and recommend therapy for the lad who wrote it. Because there's not much fruit out of a metaphysical question about the value of human existence - the answers are too short at the beginning then quickly veer towards the religious or the insane.

This guy's glass is seriously half empty.

Auditor #9 wrote:

905 wrote:

As for ther book itself, it has the great merit of raising a very basic issue (the intrinsic value of human existence), which is usually assumed but rarely discussed in philosophical terms.

I ended up being a fan of John Searle after reading to and fro between philosophers who believed x and y but at bottom they are hinting at something else - usually whether God exists or not but why wouldn't they come out and say it? As Reville says

Quote :

To me it is an extreme example of the crazy conclusion you can reach at the end of an orderly sequence of seemingly rational steps in a materialistic philosophy. I accept, of course, that you can also reach a crazy endpoint using a non-materialistic philosophy, although it would have a different flavour to Benatar's endpoint.

I think Searle would agree with Reville that it's a nonsense question but maybe he'd go one step further and suggest psychiatry.

Why should the intrinsic value of human existence be an 'issue' and not a 'phenomenon'? Can't we study this in scientific terms? John Searle would take a position of 'biological realism' I think he used to call it and recommend therapy for the lad who wrote it. Because there's not much fruit out of a metaphysical question about the value of human existence - the answers are too short at the beginning then quickly veer towards the religious or the insane.

You are the voice of reason, Auditor #9

cactus flower wrote:

This guy's glass is seriously half empty.

He's a sandwich short of a picnic.
There's a cowboy missing from his ranch.

He sounds like a begrudging little twat with big issues over his relationship with his own parents. Does he blame his parents for his own failures and pain ?
And now he wants everyone to share in his grief.
I'll give him a kick in the bollex, and then he can jump off that cliff he's been eyeing up all his miserable life.

Screwballs aside, it's very paradoxical to be discussing non-existence when you have to exist to partake of said discussion.

Well considering he ended up a philosopher, I'd imagine existence has been quite cruel to him.

from 905s link

Quote :

* Is it good to be alive?
* A radical challenge to bioethics.
* Clearly argued, accessible to non-specialists.
* This may be the most provocative philosophical view ever defended.

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.

Jaysus ... how did he survive writing the whole book without doing away with himself? I wonder is he taking this stance deliberately in order to provoke a response? Thus is he an attention seeker because he's not trying to sort himself out for cash because that's a blind alley unless he's appealing to an emerging lemming culture that is about to swell into a mass movement ...

I've been having nightmares and I'll put it down to this, not to fhe shitty bits of my own life that floating around at the moment. Can something good be got out of this or is such a book fit for the burnable pile? What a jaundiced outlook though! I'd knock his argument down this way: how can 'we' be harmed by being brought into existence when there was no 'us' before our existence to compare with? It's not like bringing a child into an African safari park prowled by hunting lionesses and then leaving it and fecking off - before we came into existence there was nothing and when we came into existence there was something - 'harm' is a secondary effect of existence and I can't blame my folks for bringing me into the world because I've a shit life... I can't really blame them if I've a partially shite upbringing either - poverty, alcoholism, domestic violence etc. as that in itself is an effect and may be remedied or dealt with in some way.

There is much about life that is both good and bad, painful and enjoyable, boring and gripping etc. but life simply IS. and coming into existence doesn't automatically launch harm on you as there was firstly no you in the first place and existence is at best morally neutral in itself unless you take some Original Sin viewpoint. Physically we are consciousnesses introduced into a system that is always running down - cradle to grave - entropy - but it does not necessarily follow that it amounts to a world of harm, and that if it does, it is not clear from his introduction what his outlook would be towards the people who would enjoy the great challenges which life presents - in short, how to live like a mountain.

I don't know how many philosophers should see psychiatrists - some of their writing is dangerous if read with warning.

When I read the opening post and read some more of the article, my first instinctual reaction was "nutter". Typical philosopher taking his conclusions to their rational end which always seem to result in nihilistic outcomes of some sort.

Upon reflection, and given our modern (present as opposed to unclear but somewhat known past) sensibilities, he may only be pointing out the glaring underpinning of where modern Western thought or belief has to head. If we take a half way point between religious thought and antheism, we might just come to the same conclusions. Say, as Sartre states, that there may be a god but he's gotten bored and taken an indefinite holiday. What we are left with is a cold and calculable mechanical universe. Any human construct or belief system is merely ephermiral to our way of ordering the world, whether is be democracy, banking, schooling and so forth. At the end of the day, the hard and calulating universe is merely going to grind it way though is routine and probably to a final moribund conclusion. No less, for all our constructs or soceity, knowledge and art, are we doing anything differently than merely grinding out an almost predetermined routine and final outcome.

We may be confusing the excitement of further understanding of the physical universe as some great advancement in the human condition while it is only an exercise of gaining knowledge for knowledge's sake. We may materially improve living conditions in the mean time (in fact we have the resources to make every living being comfortable on this planet but choose not to do so) but we can't escape the inevitable mechanical universe. We are confusing advacements with knowledge as progress but the dawning realisation of our utimate existence, both individually and collectively, seem to tell us that nothing, death primarily and ultimate extinction, will change in the long run.

Therefore, he draws the obvious rational conclusion about children. However, I don't think modern humans are particularly cruel in bearing children given past practices. Not so long ago in Western societies when attrition rates among children due to poverty and disease caused fatalities of 50% or more the strategy was to have as many children as possible in order to obtain a workforce to help with the survival of the household. Of course, the absence of birth control and the biological imperative to repoduce aided in this strategy. He is merely pointing out that our advacement in the understanding of reporduction and our ultimate control of the process should give us pause for thought on reproducing at all given the rational conclusions we must draw.

There is only one remaining irrationality standing in the way of humanity and that is our belief that we have replaced a god-like figure(s) with a human god-like figure who will eventually attain immortality. While we have rationaly explained god-like figures away as mythological beings, we have replaced the mythical figues, if you like, we the rationality of man. We are making man god. There is a belief, among many, that medical advancement, whether through cloning or other techniques, will result in the individual's immotatity and I suppose ultimate knowledge and control of the universe. It's a sort of manifest destiny idea for the universe. This leads us to believe that we are re-populating the world in order to serve a greater purpose. However, I suppose his hypothesis is that we are only fulfilling biological imperatives irrespective of how we rationalise some expected positive future outcome. Rather we should you our rationality to realise the ultimate futility of the final outcome and stop all this silly reproducing.

Meself, well, I have the All-Ireland with Tyrone to look forward too. So I'll chill for the foreseeable future. And non-existence presupposes the non-existence of pints of guinness, which I refuse to contemplate. Anyway we have to keep trying to re-populate the Tyrone football team - a worthy human exercise in my estimation. Anyway, I thinks that logic, in and of itself, may be a human construct and therefore not be the end-all, be-all of explanation mechanisms

Auditor #9 wrote:

from 905s link

Quote :

* Is it good to be alive?
* A radical challenge to bioethics.
* Clearly argued, accessible to non-specialists.
* This may be the most provocative philosophical view ever defended.

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.

Jaysus ... how did he survive writing the whole book without doing away with himself? I wonder is he taking this stance deliberately in order to provoke a response? Thus is he an attention seeker because he's not trying to sort himself out for cash because that's a blind alley unless he's appealing to an emerging lemming culture that is about to swell into a mass movement ...

I've been having nightmares and I'll put it down to this, not to fhe shitty bits of my own life that floating around at the moment. Can something good be got out of this or is such a book fit for the burnable pile? What a jaundiced outlook though! I'd knock his argument down this way: how can 'we' be harmed by being brought into existence when there was no 'us' before our existence to compare with? It's not like bringing a child into an African safari park prowled by hunting lionesses and then leaving it and fecking off - before we came into existence there was nothing and when we came into existence there was something - 'harm' is a secondary effect of existence and I can't blame my folks for bringing me into the world because I've a shit life... I can't really blame them if I've a partially shite upbringing either - poverty, alcoholism, domestic violence etc. as that in itself is an effect and may be remedied or dealt with in some way.

There is much about life that is both good and bad, painful and enjoyable, boring and gripping etc. but life simply IS. and coming into existence doesn't automatically launch harm on you as there was firstly no you in the first place and existence is at best morally neutral in itself unless you take some Original Sin viewpoint. Physically we are consciousnesses introduced into a system that is always running down - cradle to grave - entropy - but it does not necessarily follow that it amounts to a world of harm, and that if it does, it is not clear from his introduction what his outlook would be towards the people who would enjoy the great challenges which life presents - in short, how to live like a mountain.

I don't know how many philosophers should see psychiatrists - some of their writing is dangerous if read with warning.

I'd say you're still sleeping Auditor - dreamlessly I hope. I agree 100% with your posts. Life isn't a puzzle, its a phenomenon. The Charles Darwin thread here says more about it than a library of philosophy books. Part of the reason we cling to life so much even through the siucra, is that a species that failed to do that would become extinct. Wanting to live is a natural part of what we are.

Perhaps emergence of philosophies like this should be expected due to the overburden of the human population on the planet that supports us, and the damage we are doing to other species. I see on the internet there are plenty of young people who take on the "12 monkeys" view that humans are a noxious plague on the face of the planet. Nihilistic anti-life philosphies are imo a fairly unthinking reaction to this situation.

I agree with you too rockracoon that the religious view of our relationship to the planet is dangerous and wrong. It doesn't owe us a living and we have no "rights" to expect it to support our species.

My view is that no-one in affluent countries should be having more than 2 children and that people in poorer countries should be given every opportunity to use contraception to limit population growth. If someone wants to remain childless I would not discourage them.

I hear that the whale population is recovering as a result of the ban on hunting. We've sorted out plenty of enviromental problems in the past and we should get on with this side of life, not gazing at our navels wishing they had never happened.

*** Parental Guidance: Explicit Lyrics ***

Stagger Lee (Murder Ballads) - Nick Cave

cactus flower wrote:

... the religious view of our relationship to the planet is dangerous and wrong. It doesn't owe us a living and we have no "rights" to expect it to support our species.

Could you expouse this religious view to me some more?

The biblical view of the relationship between humankind and the earth is displayed in several passages in the bible. In Genesis the role of humankind is described in the Hebrew as two fold, that of kabash and radah. Whilst the former refers to the bringing of order and well-being (think of the context of famine and so on) the latter translates with having reference to the needs of all of creation. Modern translations of the hebrew text use the word dominion in regard to radah but read out of the biblical context this can give a misreading. The word dominion in context is that which a wise king should exercise over his people. That is by having due regard to the well being of his people.

One could of course make reference to all sorts of secondary allegorical passages within Genesis which could refer to the proper upkeep of the earth. Some environmentalists have read the passage relating to the taking of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden as comparable to the consequences of departing from God's commandment to tend to and bare thought towards the good upkeep of the earth.

The Psalms, similarly are full of references to the fact that all within the earth is the Lord's and that it is our duty not to exploit, but to tend it.

The bible is rich in references to the fact that it is the role of humankind to steward, not to exploit the earth.

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

... the religious view of our relationship to the planet is dangerous and wrong. It doesn't owe us a living and we have no "rights" to expect it to support our species.

Could you expouse this religious view to me some more?

The biblical view of the relationship between humankind and the earth is displayed in several passages in the bible. In Genesis the role of humankind is described in the Hebrew as two fold, that of kabash and radah. Whilst the former refers to the bringing of order and well-being (think of the context of famine and so on) the latter translates with having reference to the needs of all of creation. Modern translations of the hebrew text use the word dominion in regard to radah but read out of the biblical context this can give a misreading. The word dominion in context is that which a wise king should exercise over his people. That is by having due regard to the well being of his people.

One could of course make reference to all sorts of secondary allegorical passages within Genesis which could refer to the proper upkeep of the earth. Some environmentalists have read the passage relating to the taking of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden as comparable to the consequences of departing from God's commandment to tend to and bare thought towards the good upkeep of the earth.

The Psalms, similarly are full of references to the fact that all within the earth is the Lord's and that it is our duty not to exploit, but to tend it.

The bible is rich in references to the fact that it is the role of humankind to steward, not to exploit the earth.

It is not so rich in reminders that we are totally dependent on it.

Genesis is constantly used, particularly in the US, to justify an exploitative relationship with the planet:

1:27 God [thus] created man with His image. In the image of God, He created him, male and female He created them.
1:28 God blessed them. God said to them, 'Be fertile and become many. Fill the land and conquer it. Dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every beast that walks the land.
1:29 God said, 'Behold, I have given you every seedbearing plant on the face of the earth, and every tree that has seedbearing fruit. It shall be to you for food.

It is an incorrect intepretation of the original text, which I have clarified above.

Simply because a group of people sieze upon a text does not mean that it is the religious view. No more than the siezing upon texts by a violent cause is necessarily legitimate. It is merely the view of a section of the Christian Church in America which is out on its own in this regard to be perfectly honest.

The word radah, translated as dominion, is also used in the hebrew text in the book of Ezekial where you will find the following:

You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the
injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost.
You have ruled (radah in the hebrew) them harshly and brutally.

The context of the passage is the condemnation of shepherds who care only for themselves. This is a good text which demonstrates the actual meaning of the text. The word isn't talking about ruling for our sake, but for the sake of that which we rule. That is the biblical notion of monarchy also.

905 wrote:

There was an article in the Irish Times yesterday about a philosopher who argues that it is cruel to have children.

Quote :

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.

I think this is pareto efficiency gone mad.

johnfás wrote:

It is an incorrect intepretation of the original text, which I have clarified above.

Simply because a group of people sieze upon a text does not mean that it is the religious view. No more than the siezing upon texts by a violent cause is necessarily legitimate. It is merely the view of a section of the Christian Church in America which is out on its own in this regard to be perfectly honest.

The word radah, translated as dominion, is also used in the hebrew text in the book of Ezekial where you will find the following:

You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the
injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost.
You have ruled (radah in the hebrew) them harshly and brutally.

The context of the passage is the condemnation of shepherds who care only for themselves. This is a good text which demonstrates the actual meaning of the text. The word isn't talking about ruling for our sake, but for the sake of that which we rule. That is the biblical notion of monarchy also.

The point I'm making is that we don't rule in any sense. We are ruled by nature, not the other way around.

It is a philosophical point of view. When you take it out of context and you merely read we have dominion over the world, correct it is how you say. However, that is not the Christian view. The Christian understanding of creation is that the whole of creation is a gift from God. That we are dependent upon it, as we are dependent on God, and that we are charged with its maintenance, both for our good and also for the good of the earth.

johnfás wrote:

It is a philosophical point of view. When you take it out of context and you merely read we have dominion over the world, correct it is how you say. However, that is not the Christian view. The Christian understanding of creation is that the whole of creation is a gift from God. That we are dependent upon it, as we are dependent on God, and that we are charged with its maintenance, both for our good and also for the good of the earth.

You need to have a serious talk about this to some of the US evangelists.

Hehehe, cactus - I at one stage attempted to mount a skirmish on one of the cornerstones of the 'evangelical' establishment here but they threatened fullscale war and I didn't have the backup.

I would however note that my predictions on the particular issue were correct and there are a number of people to whom I looked for support who now regret not giving it. I ended up the lynched fall boy. Ah well.

It must be stressed that the American 'evangelical' establishment are not indicative of Christian thought the world over. They just tend to have lots of money and are publicity whores.

They're a militant lot them vangies.

Down to a tee, cactus. You should ask them about their doctrine, when you question that they drop the nuke on your head .

Just got a begging letter from said organisation 'cos they like many others, clearly believed until recently that money grew on trees. Da cheek!