[Mr. Hyde]

The philosopher David Benatar argues that it is better never to exist than to exist--that to cause a sentient entity to come into existence is always to cause harm to said entity; and, therefore, it's morally wrong to have children, etc. Is he right? Is he wrong? Why? Think about it: If you exist, you experience many pains as well as pleasures. If you never exist you experience neither. Now, it's a harm for an individual to experience pain; but it's not a harm for a non-existent entity to not experience pleasure (because said entity does not exist--a non-existent entity cannot be harmed). Thus, the argument goes, it's better never to exist at all.

What do you think?

[JerryLove]

Begs two questions:

What is the definition of "better": (apparently "causes less harm")
What is the defintion of "harm"

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde

The philosopher David Benatar argues that it is better never to exist than to exist--that to cause a sentient entity to come into existence is always to cause harm to said entity; and, therefore, it's morally wrong to have children, etc. Is he right? Is he wrong? Why? Think about it: If you exist, you experience many pains as well as pleasures. If you never exist you experience neither. Now, it's a harm for an individual to experience pain; but it's not a harm for a non-existent entity to not experience pleasure (because said entity does not exist--a non-existent entity cannot be harmed). Thus, the argument goes, it's better never to exist at all.

What do you think?

This is where the entire modern period was headed -- suffering is what 'evil' is, so we've got to get rid of all suffering. It therefore reduces to hopelessness and non-existence. But many ethical traditions, not least Christian traditions (suffering as part of union with Christ), haven't held this view and therefore don't fall into this trap.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

This is where the entire modern period was headed -- suffering is what 'evil' is, so we've got to get rid of all suffering. It therefore reduces to hopelessness and non-existence. But many ethical traditions, not least Christian traditions (suffering as part of union with Christ), haven't held this view and therefore don't fall into this trap.

They why the prayer for healing and the search for a heaven with no suffering.

I'm not sure I see that Christianity doesn't seek to avoid suffering... even if often by just hoping it will go away.

I also believe you have a straw-man pardoy of "the modern period" formulated (though not neccessairily by you) to make the "Christianity alternative" look to be the only non-hopless way, but look forward to your support.

[chicka_218]

well, if it was better to have never existed at all, then God wouldn't have made us.

[JerryLove]

Just moves the goal-post... would it be better for God to have never existed?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

They why the prayer for healing and the search for a heaven with no suffering.

Suffering is a component of a broken world. So that means that while we do trust that God is setting the world to rights and therefore believe that one day the cause for suffering will be gone, we don't see suffering itself as the central evil, like the argument does. Suffering is just an effect. Jesus definitely came to bring healing to a world under the spell of painful death. But the way he did that was by identifying with the world and bearing the world's burdens. Christians should accept suffering because we should be people who want to see healing by identifying with a broken world. Christians have a place for suffering in their lives because we have this view of what redemption and healing means. So yes, that means that God brings healing, so we pray for healing and we know that one day God will wipe away every tear from our eyes. But that also means that there is a bigger evil than suffering, and that instead of bringing healing from an aloof position of painlessness we work for healing from within the broken, painful world.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I also believe you have a straw-man pardoy of "the modern period" formulated (though not neccessairily by you) to make the "Christianity alternative" look to be the only non-hopless way, but look forward to your support.

I'm not trying to make Christianity out to have the only ethical traditions that aren't completely afraid of personal suffering. So far as I know, most ethical traditions don't take this kind of radical position against suffering. Many ascetic traditions, for instance, see suffering as a way of getting the world under control.

And, yeah, I know that it sounds like a parody, but to be honest, when I read Peter Singer I sometimes have trouble believing I'm not reading a parody. And of course "laypeople" never have views as strictly defined as the folks in the ivory towers, but Western culture is still very strongly in this direction. This is typified in its culture of healthcare: It's seen as absolutely necessary to develop pills to get rid of any tinge of pain imaginable, and any medical action is seen as justified no matter what as long as it will get rid of some pain (even emotional/psychological pain -- plastic surgery). Extremely extensive insurance is seen as a basic human right. But Huxley pointed out that when you overuse medicine to get rid of all suffering you get rid of all feeling and connection with reality. So we see the phenomenon of 'cutting'; people are inducing pain/injury so that they can just feel alive.

An example from economics: We're so afraid of any kind of recession -- even if we really deserve it -- that we're willing to take action that is truly detrimental in the long run just to alleviate smaller pain here and now.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde

The philosopher David Benatar argues that it is better never to exist than to exist--that to cause a sentient entity to come into existence is always to cause harm to said entity; and, therefore, it's morally wrong to have children, etc. Is he right? Is he wrong? Why? Think about it: If you exist, you experience many pains as well as pleasures. If you never exist you experience neither. Now, it's a harm for an individual to experience pain; but it's not a harm for a non-existent entity to not experience pleasure (because said entity does not exist--a non-existent entity cannot be harmed). Thus, the argument goes, it's better never to exist at all.

What do you think?

I think under this basic framework and the terms as defined, the best you could actually say would be "It sucks to exist." Since you've defined away any type of value judgment at all for non-existent entities by saying that there is no "harm" in a non-existent entity not experiencing pleasure, there can also be no "good" or no "pleasure" in that non-existent entities non-existence. It wouldn't be better never to have been; it simply wouldn't be [yes, the sentence ends here, and in grammatically correct fashion]. To "be" better or worse or good or bad or anything else, you have to "be" in the first place. All you can say, if you wish to follow this guy's take on morality, is that it is "bad" to exist. There's no way to compare this with non-existence because you can't compare something with nothing.

[livingalive626]

soloman said in ecc. better is the dude that has never been. so ya...