Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Philosophical
Quarterly
Benatar
future possible
people that,
one
no wrong
does
being equal,
into
existence
by bringing
people whose
as?
on
balance.
This
lives will be good
rests
being brought
life prospects)
on another,
into existence
ment,
is a benefit
turely deceased
the last.) None
though
without
gue that
erroneous.
not
argument.
the underlying
Being brought
a benefit
but always
people will
I wish
existent.
is
is
happen
a harm. Many
might
be resistant
to it.
suffer
the non?
harm.
story.
Thus,
into being
a benefit.
of empirical
fact, bad things
to all of us. No life is without hard?
this conclusion
difference
between
over
is because
which
live
with
However,
low. This
this befalls
the cheerful
will
say, we
of
life
the
pleasures
against
weigh up
the evils. As long as the former outweigh
the latter, the life is worth
living. Coming
a matter
happen
of
existers
must
II
As
joys,
existers.
people
they
that at least
sure
claim to be counter-intuitive
and will wish
to dismiss
I propose
it. For this reason,
not only to defend
the claim, but also to
suggest why
are
form
severe
Only
Of course I have not told the whole
to ar?
assumption
into existence
what
predict
take or how
(with decent
(even
cannot
will
harms
will
anxiety,
child we
given
these
that
namely
death.1 We
all things
sumption
face
all
infrequently contemplate
in the
assumption
about
literature
We
of frailty.
years
is a common
here
TO
the advantages
non-existence2
hollow
fol?
is a crucial
there
harms
not
does
and
makes
benefits
of existence
but
the disad?
real. Consider
vantages
pains and pleasures
as exemplars
of harms and benefits.
It is
uncontroversial
1) the presence
to say that:
of pain
is bad
and that
2) the presence
of pleasure
345
This content downloaded from 198.11.28.18 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:57:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
is good.
evaluation
of pain
if that
whereas
My
view
about
the asymmetry
3) and 4) is widely
reasons
First,
is the best
to support
this.
explanation
for
into existence,
those
positive
that amongst
think
who
do
think
a few
duties
only
is a duty
into existence.
For
these
is preferable
second
shared. A number of
can be advanced
this view
between
of
have
4)
even
However,
that we
also
is good, even
by anyone,
and
sometimes
thereby be benefited,
a child
do avoid bringing
into exist?
ence
of the potential
child's
because
we
If having
interests.
were
children
done
for
who
would
the welfare
suffer
be greater moral
to have
people
not
for deciding
for
those
to have
basis
whether
having children
not seem odd. And
if it were not the case
that absent pains are good even where
they
are not good for anybody,
then we could
be
(given
would
that
not
would
its absence
good,
be bad
be nobody
there would
be deprived
of it).
It might
be objected
that there
ternative
explanation
procreational
to my
peal
who
is an al?
about our
duties, one
claim
about
absent
not ap?
the asymmetry
that does
a duty
to avoid
into ex?
to
duties
judgments
those who
duties,
about
deny
this would
explanation
all other
that we
indeed
to the one
duties.
Now
for
have
any positive
be an alternative
I have
provided.
not
say
were
pleasures
they were
the child.
bad
If
of
irrespective
then
for anybody,
for their own sakes would
that
bad
it would
be
children
bringing
to avoid
good
into existence.
suffering
can be
for my
claim
support
Finally,
drawn from a related asymmetry,
this time
in our retrospective
judgments.
Bringing
as
as
to
well
into
existence
failing
people
can be regret?
into
people
only bringing
can be regretted for the sake of
bring people
ted. However,
existence
into existence
had
which
existence
was
contingent
about
might
grieve
but not because
children,
One
one could
of existence.
deprived
not having children is remorse
sorrow about having missed
about
for ourselves,
child-bearing
we
and child-rearing
However,
experiences.
a
into existence
do regret having brought
we
and
child with an unhappy
life,
regret
This content downloaded from 198.11.28.18 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:57:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and one
exists.
along
can be represented
mentioned,
body
even
pleasure
of
deprived
if there were
On
that pleasure.
3)
Presence
if that would
'
Presence
(Good)
the view
reject
about
the asymmetry
sympathetic
a distinction between
could
(i) promoting
or will
of people
(that exist,
happiness
ist independently
of one's
choices)
(ii)
increasing
people.
They
(Good)
4)
Absence
of Pleasure
<t>
(Not Bad)
increase
be manifest
if that would
lead to a net increase
being
of happiness,
others. This
by benefiting
utilitarians
is not to say that all positive
must
of Pain
Absence
<t?
of Pleasure
their
utility.
as a duty
Usually
to bring happy people
into existence.
How?
the duty
ever, under certain circumstances
into
could be to bring a suffering
person
this would
of Pain
(Bad)
(X never exists)
1)
no?
Scenario
(X exists)
diagramatically:
Scenario A
not bad.
This,
draw
the
ex?
and
by making
happiness
with
could
then, consistent
It is uncontroversially
the case that 1) is
in accordance
bad and 2) is good. However,
with
the intuitions
good
even
though
the good,
but 4)
above, 3) is
to en?
is nobody
is not bad because
is deprived of the
joy
absent
mentioned
there
pleasures.
on my
Drawing
defense
earlier
of
the
are
important
judgments
The first option
is:
to be
of morality.
of positive
This
is the pref?
If
utilitarianism.
of
(ii) also to be a requirement
one
then
would
be
morality,
regarding per?
sons merely
as means
to the production
l)Bad
3) Good
2) Good
4) Bad
took
of happiness.
If my arguments
about
into existence.
to compare
this, it is necessary
one
X exists
in
which
scenarios,
(A)
To show
two
to preserve
the absence
Here,
symmetry,
of pleasure
(4) has been termed "bad." This
is too strong because
if the ab?
judgment
sence
in scenario
of pleasure
rather than "not bad" then we
is "bad"
should
have
This content downloaded from 198.11.28.18 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:57:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
second
evaluation
a symmetrical
and pain is:
to effect
way
of pleasure
determine
the
disadvantages
never coming
relative
of coming
to be, we
and
advantages
into existence
and
to compare
need
parison
3) Not Bad
l)Bad
preferable
real one.
see
that
to existence.
In the second
is
non-existence
The
is a
advantage
comparison,
how?
the pleasures
of the existent,
although
over
non
are
a
not
real
good,
advantage
of
the
absence
because
existence,
pleasures
is not bad. For the good to be a real advan?
ever,
4) Not Good
2) Good
in this case,
the
preserve
symmetry
of pain (3) has been termed "not
absence
and the absence
bad" rather than "good,"
To
of pleasure
(4) has been termed "not good"
rather than "not bad." On one interpreta?
to "good" and
tion, "not bad" is equivalent
to "bad." But this
"not good" is equivalent
is operative
which
is not the interpretation
not
would
if
it
it
in this matrix,
for
were,
from, and would have the same short?
"Not bad"
as, the previous matrix.
comings
means
"not bad, but not good either." This
a suffering
is too weak. Avoiding
bringing
differ
the absence
It is good. Judging
to be "not good"
of pleasure
in that
weak
too
is also
it does
the absence
whether
it is also
is "bad." The
"not bad"
answer
or whether
it
"not bad"
is a more
com?
a symmetry.
If pain is
in restoring
is good, but the absence of
bad and pleasure
pain is good and the absence of pleasure not
between
then there is no symmetry
good,
succeed
pleasure
and pain.
rejected
Having
tions, I return to my
alternative
original
evalua?
diagram.
To
it would
tage over non-existence,
were
be the case that its absence
have
to
bad. To
existent
an analogy which,
this, consider
the comparison
of two
it involves
unlike
is
the
people
comparison
between
existence
illustrate
because
and non-existence
in this
may be instruc?
way, but which nonetheless
tive. S is prone to regular bouts of illness.
for him, he is also so consti?
Fortunately
tuted that he recovers
quickly. H lacks the
for quick
capacity
recovery,
but he never
to heal
for quick
capacity
a
for
S, is not a
recovery,
good
although
over H. This is because
the
real advantage
speedily.
The
have
been
had he lacked
the capac?
advantages
and non
of existence
and disadvantages
in my
still
in another
existence
way,
that is only
However,
there is nothing
Because
This content downloaded from 198.11.28.18 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:57:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
part of the
bad about
into existence,
coming
about coming
bad
something
ence,
all
considered
things
but
is
there
into exist?
about
cannot
the realizations
and never
of existence
the cheerful
we want
The
analy?
because
it
existing.
is mistaken
If
is preferable
then we must
or vice
to existence,
the
compare
sides of the diagram,
right-hand
resent the alternative
scenarios
exists
and in which
paring
the upper
X does
and
left-
versa,
and the
which
rep?
in which X
not exist.
the lower
how
Understanding
good
is.
it
holds no ad?
existence
that, although
over non-existence,
some lives
vantages
over others. Not all cases
have advantages
are equally
dis?
of coming
into existence
clear
The more
the positive
advantageous.
of a life outweigh
the negative
features
so the less
the
better
the
and
ones,
life,
so
is. But
existence
disadvantageous
long as there are some
the life is not preferable
come
into existence.
aspects,
negative
to never having
are that we
and greater
count ourselves
ers, we
should.
At
the
should
not
lose
it is better
we
into
not
be a benefit.
the harms
are
that
death
for example,
because
it is
we
a
all
We
that
face.
consider
something
death at forty as tragic, but tend to be pretty
casual about a death at ninety. Clearly,
the
to the
latter person's
life is far preferable
former's
(all other things being equal), but
that does not detract from the intrinsic harm
of a death
forty
others
there was a
contrast,
rarely lived until their
By
was
not
It becomes
living un?
as such a
regarded
clear how flexible
evaluations
are
about
our
which
are serious
all deaths
bus.
years.
people
I take it that at that time
fifties.
deaths
that
time, however,
of how serious
lives may
quality
so we
lucky. And
to my conclusion
into exist?
that coming
ence is not a benefit. Many
have
people
tragedy.3
common
to come
same
the
sight
we
are.
harms
all suffer
That people do tend
to lose sight of this is one important psy?
reason why many feel resistance
chological
never
If we
to others.
less ill-health
poor
quadrants
tend
Com?
to non-existence.
We
dency
relative
infer from
erable
which
one weighs
up (1) the pleasures
whereby
of life against (2) the evils ?
is unconvinc?
involves
is great.
that the harm of existence
emerges
so far is that
from some of the reflections
of the cheerful ?
the cost-benefit
analysis
sis of
the harm
Ill
of
how
can endorse
non-existence
is preferable.
One
existence
How
or to the current
norm
This content downloaded from 198.11.28.18 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:57:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(which
itself
is determined
can
but
vary,
tragedy in any death. That we are born des?
tined to die is a serious harm.
Not
share
all
this
One
see death as
would
perspective
to pre-conception
non-existence.
opposing
equivalent
Those who
have
is a harm.
death
of death.
view
that my
will
this outlook
even
They may
view suffers
deny
seek
that
to
contradiction
suggest
in that I think non-existence
also
a harm?
be
answer
The
is
this.
or
pre-conception
who
of possible
the non-existence
people
never
is not something
become
actual
to anybody,
death (the ces?
which happens
non-existence
sation
of
happens
existence)
to somebody.
who
is something
It happens
that
to the
is cor?
dies. Whereas
person
rect that where
Epicurus
death is, I am not and where
that I
I am, death is not, it does not follow
to regard my death as a
have no reason
of me
harm. It is, after all, the termination
and
is something
that prospect
regret
that I can
intensely.
existence
ence
objection
between
to the compari?
into
coming
X's
not coming
into exist?
to compare
it is not possible
It is said that
and non-existence.
and X's
is that
existence
is not
non-existence
can be and
somebody
for it to be better
jection.
noted4
with
to this ob?
responded
has
Joel
Feinberg
example,
X
of
the
existence
that comparing
have
Others
already
For
the non-existence
or advantageous
for the non-existent.
The
are not, and so things cannot
non-existent
literally be better for them or to their ad?
I say that non-existence
is
terms
that
made
in
is
preferable,
judgment
of the interests
of the person who would
When
or has otherwise
come
to exist.
The
claim
or
is that for any person
(whether possible
the alternative
scenario
of never
actual),
is better.5 It is because
existing
in terms of
tion is always made
that would
(or does) exist (that
son in scenario A) that my view
has
been
though
affairs
the evalua?
the person
is, the per?
is not what
even
"impersonalist,"6
a state of
is with
the comparison
called
(scenario
of a person.7
B)
the state
V
That
existence
conclusion
are happy
regret their very existence. Many
to have come into being because
they en?
are
joy their lives. But these appraisals
IV
One important
son I have made
to" or "has an
than," "preferable
am not com?
I
over"
existence,
advantage
to saying that it is better, preferable,
mitted
is "better
vantage.
to
preferable
of ex?
but then see the cessation
existence,
into existence
istence as a harm. If coming
is a harm, how can going out of existence
Whereas
in which X does
(scenario B, inmy schema)
not exist. Such a comparison
is possible.
I say that non-existence
Note
that when
of X is not
to com?
or states of
conditions
pare two possible
the existence
X. Rather
it is to compare
an alternative
state of affairs
of X with
I have
the reasons
for precisely
fact that one enjoys one's life
better than
not make one's existence
mistaken
The
outlined.
does
because
non-existence,
into existence
there would
have
been
no?
to regret
cause one does
if one
case,
the life
then no being would have suffered
one leads. That is good, even though there
would
be nobody
who would
that good.
This content downloaded from 198.11.28.18 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:57:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
have
enjoyed
be objected
that one cannot
one's
be mistaken
about whether
it may
possibly
existence
be
might
mistaken
to non-existence.
is preferable
said that just as one cannot
one
about whether
cannot
be mistaken
to have
glad
to have been
about
is in pain,
It
be
one
one
whether
is
if "I am glad
a proposition
to which
been
born. Thus
born,"
is equivalent
assent,
many
people would
to "It is better that I came into existence,"
then one cannot
existence
be mistaken
is better
about whether
The
than non-existence.
whether
one currently
is glad to have been
it does not follow
that one cannot be
born,
mistaken
came
two propositions
if one cannot
these
Even
about whether
into existence.
it is better
that one
and
then
(or earlier),
of extreme agony, re?
come
gret his having
it cannot be the case
into existence.
that (all things
Now
con?
and better
never
to have
come
But
that one
its actually
being better or worse
came into being. This is true even in those
cases in which people
do not change
their
are
to
minds
about whether
be
they
happy
have
been
born.
VI
to have children we
it is wrong
aware and suspicious
must be acutely
of
these features of our constitution,
for they
to bias us in their
immense powers
possess
whether
favour.
At
the same
the
time, to embrace
is wrong
after fail?
view
that procreation
to
the moral
consider
ing
significance
these drives would
be rash.
cannot
Children
ence
for
children
serve
their
own
for other
their own
of
be brought
into exist?
sakes. People
have
reasons,
most
of which
Parents
satisfy
to
procreate.
They find
biological
fulfillment
in nurturing
and raising chil?
an insurance
are often
dren. Children
interests.
desires
provide
par?
immortality,
the genetic material,
and
values,
through
ideas that parents pass on to their children
and which
wrong.
always
the having of
then, to defend
way,
even
one
if
children,
accepts my view that
existence
is a harm,
is to deny that that
then argue that
harm is great. One could
One
there
if one
is some
takes
rea?
the extra
is a great
that existence
agrees
not
still
be immoral to have
harm, it
might
I hasten to add that, for reasons
children.
I
shall make
case
step
and
clear,
I am not
convinced
of
children
must
This content downloaded from 198.11.28.18 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:57:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
but because
lives
whose
see
do not
well
go relatively
as a harm. They do not regret
their
having come into existence. My arguments
that these views may be less than
suggest
rational, but that does not rob them of all
lives
their moral
who
people
most
Because
significance.
live comfortable
lives are
to have
happy
come
into existence,
pro?
of such people are justified
spective parents
in assuming
that, if they have children,
too will feel this way. Given
their children
not
to obtain consent from
that it is
possible
to their existence
to bring
them
people prior
this presumption
into existence,
might play
a key role in a justification
for having chil?
we can presume
that those
dren. Where
we
whom
into
will
existence
not
bring
the argu?
mind
that we do, we are entitled,
to our
ment might
go, to give expression
these
inter?
interests.
Where
procreational
either a child
by having
or
a relatively
with a relatively
good life
if the parents
be wrong
bad life, it would
even
into
latter
the
existence,
brought
ests
can be met
where
also
not
regret
its
if the prospec?
is because,
This
existence.
tive parents are to satisfy their procreational
interests, they must do so with as little cost
as possible.
into being,
The
the
(such as where
a sub-minimally
that they would
interests.
ents'
would
lead
are so great
the par?
override
turn
cases in which
Those
the offspring
are exceedingly
out to regret their existence
tragic, but where parents cannot reasonably
foresee
this, we cannot
say, the argument
to fol?
that they do wrong
suggest,
in having
interests
their important
how different
children.
things
Imagine,
or even a sizeable
would be if the majority
would
low
minority
of people
regretted
coming
into
existence.
such
Under
circumstances
this
certainly would
The argument
to have
immoral
For
worrying.
form has been
not be
it might
for why
is somewhat
children
example,
its paternalistic
criticized
in other
widely
to rule out
of its inability
because
contexts,
in people's
those harmful
interferences
lives
as indoctrination)
of
endorsement
(such
subsequent
ences.
I am not
is because
of
the harmful
of bring?
is distinct
from
action
into existence
ing people
the factors
proval
this way
interfer?
has force
This
that effect
the
that cause
that action
it appears
the subsequent
by the offspring.
different
from
ap?
In
the harm
of indoctrination.
other
However,
Coming
trinated
similar
to endorse
concerns
the views
one
remain.
is indoc?
is one
to hold
form of adaptive
a
interfer?
preference,
paternalistic
ence comes to be endorsed. However,
there
are other kinds of adaptive
of
preference
where
we
which
are
which
goods
to be desired
also
prove
suspicious.
unattainable
Desired
can cease
The reverse
("sour grapes").
true. It is not uncommon
for people
to find themselves
circum?
in unfortunate
is also
to feed on lemons)
(being forced
to suit their
their
adapt
preferences
If coming
lemons").8
("sweet
predicament
stances
and
First,
of
is the phenomenon
evaluations
quality-of-life
there
people's
and change.
Amongst
people with?
or disability
it is
out any serious disease
are
suf?
often thought that such conditions
never
to make
harms
serious
ficiently
differ
This content downloaded from 198.11.28.18 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:57:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to existence
with
is even
the claim
to exist is preferable
stronger, that ceasing
to continued
with such diseases
existence
or disabilities.
Very often, however,
people
conditions
or acquire
these same appalling
to
them
and prefer exist?
adapt
ence with
these conditions
who
have
to never
existing
constitutes
decent
quality-of-life
the
the
is equally
and
to the
that my conclusion
be false. What
the adaptive
concern
shows is that the mere
therefore
must
contrary
preference
sufficient
that most
siasm
with
he was
why
ben?
is rational. We
appraisal
take a slave's
endorsement
of
not
enslavement,
his enthusiasm
can
is not
has been
or that one's
efited
would
phenomenon
is set too
threshold
claim that the ordinary
low (so that at least some of us should pass
we
that one
evidence
that sla?
of an
In the face
not benefited
we would
by his
view with
suspicion
for his own enslavement.
We
enthu?
do the same about people's
for their having come into existence.
if having
Even
children
is not immoral
should
we might
be en?
the presumption
(given
at
titled to make), my argument
suggests,
the very least, that it is not morally
desir?
anguish,
marks every human life and
that
suffering
our
as we
existence,
judge
(relatively
our potential
able. Although
offspring may
not regret coming
into existence,
they cer?
not
not
would
into
regret
tainly
coming
existence.
Since
interests
to come
desirable
course
pointment,
existence
worse
of bedridden
Our
to be
quadriplegics,
of non-existence.
of what
constitutes
accept?
rooted
can we
judgments
are deeply
limits of suffering
in the state of our well-being.
How
able
be
so confident
that we
self-deception?
But why
should
are not
guilty
such
of
be
self-deception
is the strong
explanation
we
reasons
why
evolutionary
might be dis?
our
as
a
to
view
lives
benefit.
Such
posed
so pervasive?
One
a view
facilitates
survival,
and the species.
These issues merit more
ment
than
I am able
of the individual
to offer
here.
treat?
I am
is that it
of my view
to die
be preferable
for our species
out. It would be better if there were no more
would
procreation
and
age
chance
unsure,
comes
argument
have
whether
the suggested
therefore,
for the permissibility
of (some?
children
is
sound.
However,
times) having
the worry that adaptive preferences
may be
operative
objection
does
some
provide
critics
one response
to an
raise, that the fact
of action
in their
the morally
is to ensure that
they do not.
One
implication
the world
substantial
not
it is actually
into being,
would
population
extinct. There
is no
this occurring.
If our species
an
to
end, it will not be because we
to bring
chosen
this about
freely
of
actions). Nevertheless
is one which
must
be
ity
because
it is a theoretical
This content downloaded from 198.11.28.18 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:57:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the possibil?
considered
implication
of
view.
aspects
to die
would be tragic. The last generation
out would
in which
the
live in a world
structures
down.
had broken
society
be no younger working
gen?
the crops,
eration
growing
preserving
and homes for the
order, running hospitals
and
the
dead.
The situation
aged,
burying
There
of
would
is a bleak
whether
would
one
to know
It is hard
indeed.
the suffering
of
the final
people
be any greater than that of so many
in each generation.
I doubt that it
people
but
would,
the moment.
let us imagine
people to make
that all others
If we do not object
unpleasant.
in other contexts,
sacrifice
why
to it when
it would
should we object
pre?
vent any further suffering?
extremely
to heroic
But what
children
then we
thing
immoral.
first
that
this
correct. What
the permissibility
if, despite
acted on the
of having
children,
people
ideal, forwent having children and suffered
How
ideal?
the demise
of humanity,
think
itself would
be un?
to provide
fortunate would be hard-pressed
an explanation
of this in terms of the in?
terests of those who could have come into
would
there be to suffer the
being. Who
end of homo
sug?
sapiens? One possible
an outcome
as a result?
tragic about
that
tremendously
be acceptable
as a moral
if the assumption
that having
is permissible
is mistaken?
Even
see that if there is some?
should
is
view
to spare possible
future
That would
of existence.
themselves
the harm
people
even though
to be admired
be something
the consequences
for the heroes would
be
for
the opposite
be
would
upon
which
a generation
would
accept
(albeit fearfully)
in the name of the moral
a supererogatory
College
ideal.
or heroic
could
willingly
upon itself
It would
decision
who
knew
it was
be
for
of human
going
to happen. How?
be another feature
simply
that foreshadowed
the end
life.9
of Charleston
Received
October
21,
1996
NOTES
1. Only extremely
rarely, if ever, is death
life is unbearable.
where continued
a good,
although
it is often
It is applicable
to those who never exist
is multiply
2. The term "non-existence"
ambiguous.
and to those who do not currently exist. The latter can be divided further into those who do not
to
yet exist and those who are no longer existing. In the current context I am using "non-existence"
denote those who never exist. Joel Feinberg has argued that the not yet existent and the no
longer existent can be harmed. I embrace that view. What I have to say here applies only to the
never
existent.
This content downloaded from 198.11.28.18 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:57:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Life
Element
in Freedom
in Harming"
and
Parfit, Reasons
this claim more
and Persons,
chapter
17.
fully elsewhere.
this will
comments
which
have helped me
This content downloaded from 198.11.28.18 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:57:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to