UNDER THE MICROSCOPEA new book argues that we would be better off if we had never come into the world, writes Dr William Reville
Never to have been here is best
But if we must see the light, the next best
Is quickly returning whence we came'
THESE LINES by Sophocles (c.496-406bc) succinctly express the message of a recent book, Better Never to Have Been - The Harm of Coming into Existence, by David Benatar (Oxford University Press, 2006). Benatar is professor of philosophy at the University of Cape Town, South Africa.
The following description of the book is from the OUP website:
"Most people believe that they were either benefited or at least not harmed by being brought into existence. Thus, if they ever do reflect on whether they should bring others into existence - rather than having children without even thinking about whether they should - they presume that they do them no harm.
"Better Never to Have Been challenges these assumptions. David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence.
"Drawing on the relevant psychological literature, the author shows that there are a number of well-documented features of human psychology that explain why people systematically overestimate the quality of their lives and why they are thus resistant to the suggestion that they are seriously harmed by being brought into existence. The author then argues for the "anti-natal" view - that it is always wrong to have children - and he shows that combining the anti-natal view with common pro-choice views about fetal moral status yields a "pro-death" view about abortion (at the earlier stages of gestation). Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct. Although counter-intuitive for many, that implication is defended, not least by showing that it solves many conundrums of moral theory about population."
To which I can only say, "Be the hokey!"
It seems to me that this argument doesn't take balance into account. If we are to attribute good to the avoidance of pain through non-existence, must we not also attribute harm to denying pleasure by not coming into existence? If the pleasure outweighs the pain, the net result of coming into existence is good.
Benatar does not advocate suicide, which would seem to be a logical consequence of his arguments. He argues that even if coming into existence is always a harm, it does not follow necessarily that death is better than continuing to exist. Of course, it never occurred to him that no publisher would touch his book if he advocated suicide.
Benatar's argument is interesting but nonsensical. To me it is an extreme example of the crazy conclusion you can reach at the end of an orderly sequence of seemingly rational steps in a materialistic philosophy. I accept, of course, that you can also reach a crazy endpoint using a non-materialistic philosophy, although it would have a different flavour to Benatar's endpoint.
Science shows us that humans are the end product of a chain of increasing and amazing complexification that began about 13 billion years ago in the simplicity of the Big Bang. This chain continues to lengthen. We are very possibly the only intelligent life in the universe. What an amazing adventure we find ourselves in. What excitement and pleasure we should feel in trying to understand it all more fully. And all Benatar can advocate is that we should deliberately snuff out our wonderful inheritance to avoid feeling any pain.
We are evolving animals programmed with a primary instinct to reproduce. We are gradually improving our social and material conditions, but a quota of suffering is an inevitable part of the average life. We are equipped to live with this and to work to reduce suffering and increase pleasure - and we are succeeding. Most of us know how to live fulfilled and satisfying lives despite enduring some suffering.
This is not foolish optimism - it is our lived experience.
I thought philosophers knew what to do when smart-arsed reasoning came up with crazy conclusions. Remember Xeno's Paradox? How can a man on a journey ever reach his destination? After all, he must first travel half the distance. Next he travels half the remaining distance, and then half the remaining distance, and then . . . He can never arrive at his destination because there will always be a remaining distance, half of which must first be travelled. The answer to this puzzle was - just step it out and you will get there. That is also my advice to Benatar - you need to get out more.
• William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC -http:// understandingscience.ucc.ie