4 Comments

  1. […] Jehovah’s Witnesses to actually know a thing or two about that. Then here’s one, called The Double Standard Behind Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument for Anti-Natalism, in which I’m criticizing an argument made in favor of anti-natalism, the idea that […]

  2. laughingman

    This post is genius! I couldn’t fathom how life is suffering, because you have to be alive to come to that conclusion! Therefore there would be some value in simply living long enough to be able to make the conclusion that life is suffering.

    But your explanation is way better

  3. Brandon Tran

    I would say since never being born has zero value on the nonexistent person, it really becomes a choice between the risk of pain but the chance of pleasure or nothing at all. However, since there is no situation where pleasure can be guaranteed without pain, it is inevitably a trade-off. Therefore, it is unethical to reproduce because the nonexistent person cannot consent to this gamble and could be placed into a situation where they are miserable overall.

    • However, since there is no situation where pleasure can be guaranteed without pain, it is inevitably a trade-off.

      Sure.

      Therefore, it is unethical to reproduce because the nonexistent person cannot consent to this gamble and could be placed into a situation where they are miserable overall.

      That doesn’t follow. Since people are naturally predisposed to seek pleasure and avoid pain, it would take extraordinary circumstances for a life to be miserable overall.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *