Why it is Better Never to Come into Existence: Philosophy Paper

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Why it is Better Never to Come into Existence: Philosophy Paper
In this paper, I will explain David Benatar’s argument for why it is better never to come into existence, one possible objection to his argument, in this case, that the absence of pain and pleasure can be there even when the individual is existence. This objection succeeds because it questions the very assumption that Benatar has in regard to pain and pleasure being absent only in non-existence. Individuals can sometimes experience periods of no pleasure or pain, which are similar conditions to non-existence. I will explain the widely shared assumption and the cheerful analysis, which forms the basis of Benatar’s argument. Further, I will explain Benatar’s view of asymmetry of harms and benefits, his conclusion about coming into existence, and an objection to his argument.
A Widely-Shared Assumption and the Cheerful Analysis
Benatar posits that bringing someone into existence, regardless of their situation in life, is harmful to that person. Benatar’s position rejects a widely shared assumption that there is nothing wrong with bringing someone into existence as long as they lead decent lives, which in itself is a benefit. He believes that this assumption is wrong for specifically one good reason; that we all suffer and face hardships in life (Benatar 156). As such, it is not possible to have a completely good life free of suffering and consequently, there is something wrong with bringing someone into existence. In fact, Benatar (156) posits that “we all face death” and it is evident that he considers death by its own right as a bad thing that should be avoided by never coming into existence in the first place.
Thus, Benatar refutes what the cheerful say to justify coming into existence. According to the cheerful, if the pleasures of existence outweigh the sufferings, then it is worth living and we should view such a life as a benefit of existence (156). What the cheerful fail to consider is the absence of either of the two aspects of life. In fact, Benatar believes that this cheerful approach of determining whether life is worth living is wrong because it only considers the factors involved in existence. The cheerful approach does not consider how life would be if an individual was non-existence. As such, it would be difficult to make the correct inference because the analysis is incomplete. What Benatar is trying to say is that focusing on existence alone would not be as fruitful as focusing on both existence and non-existence. Therefore, the best analysis, in Benatar’s view, would be to have two scenarios in which one, the individual exists and there is both presence of pain and pleasure and two, the individual does not exist and there is an absence of both pain and pleasure (158). Once the two scenarios are in place, Benatar suggests we compare the presence of pain for scenario one with the absence of pain for scenario two. Further, we should also compare the presence of pleasure for scenario one with the absence of pleasure for scenario two. This would give a better idea of what an individual’s life would be like if they existed and if they did n...