David Benatar, born in 1966, is a South African philosopher, academic, and author. He is best known for his advocacy of anti-natalism in his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, in which he argues that coming into existence is a serious harm (regardless of your current feelings about your existence) and that it is always morally wrong to create more sentient beings. He is a professor of philosophy and director of the Bioethics Centre at the University of Cape Town and a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Controversial Ideas.
David Benatar’s book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, which was published in 2006, is a provocative exploration of anti-natalism, the philosophy that argues against bringing new life into the world. He challenges one of humanity’s most ingrained assumptions: that life, despite its hardships, is ultimately worth living. Instead, he argues that coming into existence is a serious harm and that non-existence is preferable.
At the heart of his argument is the “Asymmetry Argument”. This concept posits that while the absence of pain is inherently good (even if there is no one to benefit from that absence), the absence of pleasure is not inherently bad unless there is someone for whom that absence matters. According to Benatar, this asymmetry reveals a fundamental truth: not coming into existence spares one from suffering, whereas existing inevitably involves some level of harm. In his view, the mere act of being born exposes an individual to the inevitability of pain, suffering, and the potential for more harm than good.
Benatar further argues that humans are biased in their assessment of life. He explains that we tend to underestimate suffering and overestimate happiness due to evolutionary and psychological biases. This phenomenon, which he calls “Pollyannaism” (after the fictional character Pollyanna who maintains unwavering optimism in every situation) leads us to believe that life is generally good or worth the pain, even when objective assessment may suggest otherwise. By highlighting these biases, Benatar seeks to demonstrate that our instinctive drive to value life is less a reflection of objective reality and more a product of evolved psychological mechanisms that help us cope with existence.
The book is meticulously argued, and Benatar builds his case with a combination of philosophical rigour and empirical data. He draws on examples from everyday experiences, literature, and historical events to support his view that life, as it is commonly lived, is marked by more suffering than joy. He also critically examines the ethical implications of his stance, challenging traditional views on procreation, parenthood, and societal values.
The book has attracted considerable controversy. Many critics argue that Benatar’s position is overly pessimistic and neglects the many experiences of joy, love, and meaning that life offers. They contend that his view could be seen as overly reductionist, failing to acknowledge the complex interplay of suffering and happiness in human existence. Additionally, some argue that Benatar’s stance could lead to nihilism or despair, as it seems to negate any inherent value in human life.
Supporters of Benatar’s argument commend his courage in tackling a taboo subject head-on. They appreciate his willingness to question deeply ingrained societal assumptions and his logical consistency in approaching a difficult topic with philosophical precision. The book is seen as an essential read for those interested in existentialism, ethics, and the philosophy of suffering, and it has sparked lively debates across philosophical circles.
Better Never to Have Been is not just a book for academics; it is an invitation to all readers to reflect on the nature of existence, the meaning of suffering, and the ethics of procreation. Benatar’s clear prose and thought-provoking arguments make it a challenging but rewarding read for anyone interested in grappling with life’s fundamental questions. Ultimately, whether one agrees or disagrees with his conclusions, the book forces a deeper engagement with the question of whether life, with all its suffering, is a gift or a burden — and whether bringing new life into the world can ever be truly justified.
What do our humanist readers think of this anti-natalist argument? Why not tell us in the comments section.
This review was produced by ChatGPT and lightly edited by David Warden who has read the book.
As an intellectual exploration it might be fun but given where similar ruminations last century by philosophers such as Hegel and others eventuallly led, directly to the holocaust and the nihilism of the Nazis, we need to be on constant guard against ideas that devalue the lives of others and life itself.
Would it be fair to state that most of us exist because of a desire to have sex, and that the resultant baby created is then an issue to decide on. I wonder how the human population would be if we were all infertile without some magical pill/intervention that had to be requested in order to procreate? That creating life was primarily the goal, rather than the accidental happenstance.