Do you agree with the saying “better to never have been?”

[sserafim]

Do you agree with the saying and philosophy "better to never have been?" It's a saying popularized by the philosopher David Benatar, in his book of the same name. His main argument is that existence always causes harm to the individual and that procreation is always immoral. It's better to never have existed at all rather than have to experience pain and suffering.

 

[FuneralCry]

Yes as only never existing is true perfection, no matter what I'd see it as better to not exist. The existence of life is such a horrific tragedy in the first place, I believe one would have to be insane to see existence as desirable as it causes nothing but suffering.

 

[hikikomorizombie]

idk honestly. this is something i've swung btwn for awhile. personally, i'd prefer to have never existed, bc the good things in life don't compare to all of the rampant pain & depravity & suffering & injustice in the world. that's why millionaires & celebrities kts, living a gr8 life & being surrounded by amazing things doesn't=life's worth it/enjoyment for life.

however i'm still unable to say that it's better to have never existed than to exist @ all, it's just too much of a blanket statement. i think that if we got to exist in a better world filled w better people + things, and went through better experiences, then i wouldn't mind existing.

like imagine if we could craft our dream lives for ourselves like The Sims, existing def wouldn't be so bad then. so i don't think the problem's existence itself, just extenuating circumstances make our existence unbearable.

 

[ali.hamza]

Do you agree with the saying and philosophy "better to never have been?" It's a saying popularized by the philosopher David Benatar, in his book of the same name. His main argument is that existence always causes harm to the individual and that procreation is always immoral. It's better to never have existed at all rather than have to experience pain and suffering.

I absolutely agree with it. I think our existence is our greatest enemy. If we wouldn't exist then we wouldn't need anything that we suffer for. Also, we wouldn't need any pleasure thing. In fact we would be completely free because we wouldn't be bound to our limits and desires.
My biggest wish is I would never exist.

 

[Final_Choice]

Personally, yes, but as a whole, no. I don't think that existence itself must always cause harm to the point it's a net negative opposed to feeling good things. I think current circumstances which we can't control (state of the world, bad people, governments, policies, and plenty more) cause our existence to naturally be a net negative. So, yes if we only consider our current scope of existence and yes only considering my own personal circumstances.

But if people can somehow enjoy their life (through whatever means necessary) then it's not necessarily existence but those other factors which influence our lives as a whole and indirectly cause our existence to be horrible and a worse outcome compared to not existing at all.

 

[sserafim]

idk honestly. this is something i've swung between for awhile. personally, i'd prefer to have never existed, bc the good things in life don't compare to all of the rampant pain & depravity & suffering & injustice in the world. that's why millionaires & celebrities kts, living a gr8 life & being surrounded by amazing things doesn't=life's worth it/enjoyment for life.

however there's still something that stops me from being able to say that it's better to have never existed than to exist @ all, i think it might be bc it's just too much of a blanket statement.

The pain in life far outweighs the pleasure though…

Personally, yes, but as a whole, no. I don't think that existence itself must always cause harm to the point it's a net negative opposed to feeling good things. I think current circumstances which we can't control (state of the world, bad people, governments, policies, and plenty more) cause our existence to naturally be a net negative. So, yes if we only consider our current scope of existence and yes only considering my own personal circumstances.

But if people can somehow enjoy their life (through whatever means necessary) then it's not necessarily existence but those other factors which influence our lives as a whole and indirectly cause our existence to be horrible and a worse outcome compared to not existing at all.

I guess, but existence forces you to be in a constant state of survival. Also, you can only suffer because you exist. If you never existed, you would never have to suffer. At the end of the day, existence is just about survival. Every day you have to satisfy your needs of hunger, thirst, etc (these unmet are experienced by pain). You have to work for a living just to afford to be able to survive. The laws of nature are: survive, reproduce and die. Nature doesn't care about whether you're happy or not, it just wants you to survive and pass your genes onto the next generation. Sure, happiness and pleasure feel good, but that's not the main concern, it's still survival and surviving.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I'm not an antinatalist (though I lean more towards antinatalism than natalism) but I think that, in my case, it's better to never have been. After all, ignorance is bliss and there's nothing much more blissful than not having been born in the first.

I even think that the phrase can apply for the majority of humans living happy lives too. Yes, if they were never born, they would miss out on all of the happiness they experienced to become pro life but, simultaneously, they can't regret about any of it as non existent people cannot feel depressed over deprivation of pleasure. It's only in existence where people can feel depressed over deprivation of pleasure. And, from the point of birth, you don't yet know if that human would live a good life or if they'll suffer to the point where they'll consider ctb. Hence, in all cases, life is a gamble and the gamble isn't worth it as nothing would be lost had we never been born yet it would be possible to lose the lottery with your child and have them be depressed and/or incompatible with life if they were born

 

[Argo]

In a universal sense(like, everyone all at once), yes. If you could shut down reality right now and make sure it never arose again you'd be the greatest hero possible(literally-- it would not be possible to top this act). But on a case by case basis it looks really complicated. It's so complicated, that even the most obvious cases can make us think twice. The reason for that is things become problematic when we go beyond our human-eye-view thinking and look at the biggest scope/scale possible. Once you go beyond the individual level, you run into consequences like "Well, what would the total positive outcomes of this persons existence have been? vs. the negative outcomes of their existence?" <- This is really fucking hard to think about

But when we're talking about total and persistent nonexistence, it's so neat and tidy since you've permanently eliminated all problems.

There's one scenario though where it would be true that it's just better never to have been for anyone-- and that scenario would involve a world where even the best lives that have the most positive outcomes(outcomes that echo way beyond that person's own life because they have such a lasting positive effect), still end up making things worse in the long run. If that's the world we live in(and that is a possibility we should take seriously), then it would just flat out be better never to have been.