Podcast Summary
Discussing Antinatalism with David Benatar: Antinatalism, as argued by David Benatar, is the belief that bringing new beings into existence is a harm, and not living is preferable for those who don't exist yet. Benatar's philosophy challenges our bias towards existence and raises intriguing questions about the value of life.
Key takeaway from this conversation between Sam Harris and David Benatar is the philosophical stance of Antinatalism, which David Benatar strongly advocates for. Antinatalism is the belief that bringing new beings into existence is a harm, and therefore, not living is preferable for those who do not yet exist. Benatar, a professor of philosophy at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, has written extensively on this topic, including in his books "Better Never to Have Been" and "The Human Predicament." The conversation touches on various aspects of this philosophy, including the asymmetry between good and bad experiences, the ethics of existential risk, the difference between starting and continuing a life, and the limits and paradoxes of introspection. Benatar's perspective challenges our built-in bias towards existence and raises intriguing questions about the value of life. This conversation provides valuable insights for those interested in moral philosophy and the question of whether existence is worth the trouble.
The Ethical Case Against Bringing New Beings Into Existence: Antinatalism argues against creating new sentient beings due to potential harm and suffering, with both philanthropic and misanthropic arguments.
According to the philosophical view of antinatalism, it is wrong to bring new sentient beings into existence due to the potential harm and suffering they will experience. This view, which has been explored in various philosophical and religious contexts throughout history, includes both philanthropic arguments, which focus on the harm to the being brought into existence, and misanthropic arguments, which focus on the harm that being will cause to others. Antinatalism is distinct from nihilism, as it acknowledges that suffering is a real and negative experience. While the idea may be controversial and provoke strong reactions, some people find comfort in knowing that they are not alone in holding such thoughts.
Examining Nihilistic Philosophies Beyond Personal Experiences: Believing life lacks cosmic meaning doesn't justify causing suffering to others. Personal experiences don't always dictate philosophical beliefs, and the world's suffering can influence antinatalist views.
While some may view nihilistic philosophies as a product of mood disorders or personal experiences, it's essential to examine the arguments on their merits. The speaker, who identifies as a nihilist, emphasizes that just because one believes life may lack cosmic meaning doesn't give license to inflict suffering on others. An anecdote about a suicidal friend who believed his reasoning justified his decision to take his life illustrates this point. The friend, who was philosophical and intelligent, had convinced himself that suicide was the best option due to his anhedonia – his lack of joy in living moment to moment. However, if his mood and experiences had been different, he might have found the arguments less compelling. The speaker encourages us to consider the world's suffering, which can be a significant motivator for antinatalist views, and not just our personal experiences.
The value of absence of harm outweighs the value of absence of positive experiences - Asymmetry Argument: The absence of negative experiences or harms has value, even if no one is specifically benefited, and this value can outweigh the value of the absence of positive experiences.
The absence of negative experiences or harms can be considered a positive good, even if there is no one specifically harmed by their absence. This idea, known as the asymmetry argument, suggests that the value of the absence of harm outweighs the value of the absence of positive experiences. For example, considering uninhabited parts of the universe, we don't feel remorse for the missing potential goods, but we do appreciate the absence of suffering in those places. This concept can be seen as intuitive and can help explain other value-based asymmetries. However, it's important to acknowledge that there are other potential asymmetries worth considering as well.
The Moral Significance of Preventing Potential Goods vs. Preventing Potential Suffering: The debate over preventing potential suffering vs. potential goods centers on the moral importance of each. Human extinction adds complexity, requiring careful consideration of context and values.
There's a philosophical debate about the moral significance of preventing potential goods versus preventing potential suffering. While some argue that preventing potential suffering outweighs the importance of potential goods, others claim that the potential goods, such as the existence of new beings or the continuation of human civilization, hold significant moral value. This debate becomes particularly complex when considering the issue of human extinction, where the potential losses of future goods and the sentimentality towards human existence can confound our thinking. Ultimately, the decision between prioritizing the prevention of suffering versus the potential creation of goods is a complex one, and requires careful consideration of the specific context and values at play.
Weighing the Ethics of Starting a Life: The speaker argues that the potential benefits and suffering of a new life should be carefully considered, as the starting point involves more uncertainty and potential harm than continuing an existing life.
When considering the ethical implications of bringing a child into existence, we must weigh the potential benefits and suffering they may experience. The speaker argues that the bar for starting a life is higher than continuing one, as the starting point involves a greater degree of uncertainty and potential harm. Even if existence is generally pleasant, there are still many lives that are not worth living. The speaker suggests that the phrase "a life worth living" is ambiguous, and different standards should apply to determining whether a life is worth starting versus continuing. Ultimately, the speaker questions whether there is truly no downside to existence, or if there is some inherent suffering that must be balanced against the good.
Is existence worth it?: The value of existence depends on one's perspective and belief, as the idea of a perfect existence is hard to imagine in practice, and the absence of existence holds no value or loss for us.
According to the philosophical discussion, the question of whether coming into existence is worth it is complex and depends on the nature of existence itself. The speaker argues that if existence were perfect, we should be indifferent between coming into existence and not, as the absence of a life would mean nothing to us. However, the idea of a perfect existence is hard to imagine in practice. The asymmetry lies in the fact that if we exist, we may find our lives worth continuing, but if we don't exist, the absence of our existence holds no value or loss. Ultimately, the speaker suggests that there's no clear answer to the question, and that it's a matter of personal perspective and belief. The discussion also touches on the idea of a godlike paradise where suffering doesn't exist, and the question of why we should exist if such a paradise is possible. The debate revolves around the symmetry of existence and non-existence, and whether there's anything inherently good or bad about either state.
The ethics of bringing a suffering child into existence: The absence of a suffering child's life doesn't cause harm in the same way as the absence of a potential benefit for an existing child, but the decision not to bestow a potential benefit on an existing child can be seen as a form of harm.
The decision to bring a child into existence versus the decision to not bring a child into existence, who would potentially lead a life of suffering, raises complex ethical questions. While it may seem reasonable to avoid bringing a suffering child into existence, the absence of that child's life is not considered "bad" in the same way that an existing child's life is impacted by the absence of a potential benefit. The absence of a child's existence does not result in deprivation or harm in the same way that an existing child's life can be impacted by the absence of a potential benefit. However, the decision to not bestow a potential benefit on an existing child can be seen as a form of harm, and the ethical implications of this decision are more complex. These ideas touch on population ethics and the concept of the "more is better" principle when it comes to good lives. Ultimately, the decision to bring a child into existence or not involves a balance of potential benefits and harms, and the ethical implications of these decisions are complex and multifaceted.
Indifference towards nonexistence vs existence: The debate over whether indifference towards nonexistence is equal to existence or not is a complex philosophical issue, with some arguing for neutrality and others for the inherent value of existence.
The concept of indifference towards nonexistence versus existence, especially when considering the spectrum of hedonic experiences, is a complex issue. While acknowledging the difference between positive and negative experiences, some argue that the absence of experience, or nonexistence, should be considered neutral and indifferent to positive experiences. However, this perspective is not universally accepted, as some argue that existence, with all its potential pleasures and pains, is inherently better than nonexistence. The Buddhist philosophy, which views existence as inherently unsatisfying, aligns more closely with the idea that nonexistence is not a net disadvantage compared to existence. Ultimately, the question of indifference towards nonexistence versus existence is a deeply philosophical and complex issue that requires further exploration and consideration.
The Debate on Painless Subsequent Death: The philosophical question of whether it's bad for everyone to painlessly die in their sleep remains debated, with some arguing against it due to the desire to continue existing and the potential for intrinsic well-being in practices like meditation.
While there are philosophical perspectives, such as Buddhism, which suggest the potential for deep engagement in practices like meditation to bring about equanimity and intrinsic well-being, the question of whether it would be bad for everyone to painlessly die in their sleep is still a matter of debate. Those who exist have an interest in continuing to do so, and the idea of being annihilated goes against this. The two arguments presented, the asymmetry argument and the argument about ceasing to exist, are separate, and an antinatalist could hold both views. However, if existence is truly as bad as some argue, it's unclear why that wouldn't also apply to the moral character of waking up the next day.
The best possible outcome is every person's painless death in their sleep: From this perspective, future generations and their experiences hold no moral significance
According to the perspective presented, the death of every person painlessly in their sleep could be considered the best possible outcome, as there is no moral weight given to the hypothetical goods that could have been experienced by future generations. This is because, implicit in the argument, is the claim that the existence of future people and their potential experiences hold no moral significance. The speaker invites listeners to continue exploring this idea further by subscribing to the Making Sense podcast, where they can access full-length episodes and other exclusive content. It's important to note that this perspective is just one interpretation and may not align with everyone's beliefs. The podcast relies on listener support and is ad-free.
