"It Is Immoral To Have Children!" - Benetar
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 окт 2024
- In this video, I review "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence" by David Benatar, a thought-provoking book that challenges traditional notions of existence, morality, and the human condition.
Benatar's central argument is rooted in antinatalism, a philosophical position that asserts:
1. Existence is inherently harmful and detrimental to individuals.
2. Coming into existence is always a harm, as it inevitably leads to suffering, pain, and frustration.
3. Procreation is morally questionable, as it imposes existence on a new being without their consent.
Antinatalism raises essential questions:
Is existence a gift or a burden?
Do the benefits of life outweigh the harms?
Should we reconsider our assumptions about procreation and the value of existence?
Join me as I delve into Benatar's compelling arguments, exploring the ethics, implications, and controversies surrounding antinatalism.
#antinatalism
#philosophy
#suffering
#procreation
#athiest
#Davidbenetar
Question for David Benatar: If not existing didn't stop this life from being imposed, why would have not existing (had I never been born) had the power to stop some *other* life from being the one to do the imposition? All lives on Earth didn't exist at a point in time, yet a life was still imposed. This is true for each life alive today, and has ever lived. Not existing didn't stop a life from being imposed. Therefore it's empirically true that not existing is incapable of stopping a life from being imposed. So, it becomes clear that *if it isn't one life it's another*. If you imagine a universe completely devoid of all life, but then you come to exist, then that's the life that's "imposed". That life does the imposition of a life. So had some other life come to exist, in this thought experiment, then that would be the life responsible for "the Imposition". So had you never been born, then instead of *this* life being "the life", then some other life would have been "the life"... There was simply no escape, because there was no you to escape the imposition of one life or another. And the same will be true after death: your lack of existing will not be able to stop yet another individual life from doing yet another "imposition", and so there will be a succession of lives. After one ends, another is imposed. So if the human race goes extinct, then the succession will consist of only animal lives... Considering the amount of suffering animal lives endure, this is a horrifying prospect. And who knows what other sorts of lives exist throughout the universe. You might think peace will come after the heat death of the universe, but there'd be no one to appreciate that lack of experience, and so that lack of life has no value and so becomes a moot point. Then it gets into whether or not the universe will repeat, are there other universes? Will the heat death be the forever end, or will another universe come to exist? There are serious philosophers and scientists that believe the continuation of the universe in some way, or other universes, or something like a "big bounce"... Without there being some kind of peaceful metaphysical safety bubble we were in or go into after death, there's nothing worth mentioning about not existing or implying, in any way, that it could be preferable, since it's incapable of stopping one life or another from doing "the Imposition" of a life. This makes your idea that not existing is better, a logically flawed idea. Sure, it might be good for particular lives to not exist, but since there's no escaping one life or another, your Asymmetry Argument which is applied to life in general , all lives in the generic sense) becomes an exercise in futility. The best we can do is make the universe a better place.
@@naturalisted1714 this is definitely one heck of a valid criticism of David's position. And I strongly feel in as much as he doesn't openly admit it, his central arguement seems well rested on utilitarianism. And he seems for the most part to give so much importance to the alleviation of suffering to a point where as long as there isn't anyone left to experience it in any subjective conscious manner than all is good
@@seiraph I think Ted needs to listen to 03:42 again.
@@seiraphwell he's not a utilitarian fyi
Well done, your book summaries give an unbiased overview, thanks
Now this is how you do a book review ❤ I love you man
There is just something captivating about how you put your thoughts and words together 🙏🏿 trust me I don't even need to read the book, this review is too substantive, can you review "The Tyranny of Merit" By Sandel
Beautiful review. Really enjoyed your breakdown. The viewpoint of this book reminds me of quotes from the bible.
Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 NKJV
"Therefore I praised the dead who were already dead, More than the living who are still alive. Yet, better than both is he who has never existed, Who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun".
Liked and subbed.
@@Zoalsoul I actually even thought of quoting a few but I wanted to review the book in its own right lol
Yes life can be miserable but having had a chance to glance at a setting sun is way better than never ever having ever had a face and a name
Well how would you know it's better if you hadn't existed in the first place?