Please note: Professor Benatar requested that we film a brief followup conversation to clarify some points, which can be found here: ua-cam.com/video/YGL2r8PNb8c/v-deo.html What a great way to resume the Cosmic Skeptic Podcast! I have some episodes lined up to record and to release, let me know if you have any suggestions for guests.
Thanks Alex, looking forward to the conversation! I would really like to see David Pearce on your podcast. Look up his stuff about wild animal suffering. Cheers
Markus Gabriel is very popular in europe. Also (as has been suggested) David Pearce would make a great guest to introduce topics related to transhumanism and the philosophy of technology.
I love how Alex isn't afraid to challenge those who he interviews, even when he ultimately agrees with them, this makes them think on the spot, which is sth you don't see very often in this kind of respectful encounters.
unfortunately just like with Singer, they're not as quickl/smart as he is, luckyly this time the guest came back to clarify after having had more time to understand Alex's points! :)
To all the people asking why David Benatar does not reveal his face- just imagine the amount of scrutiny regarding his persona and remember that there are religious wackos out there sending threats . It is totally understandable imho.
Not just religious wackos. To take such a stance is a huge affront to women. The entire premise of most womens existence is having children. I've had this discussion with both men and women and women become very severe and reactionary.
Alex, if you see this, you are an inspiration to all of us out there. Many of us who studied philosophy have nowhere near the level of understanding, frame of reference or general intellect and comprehension to speak on these subjects with a moderate degree of confidence. You're an undergrad(I believe) pursuing a double major and, are able to challenge a Head of a Philosophy department on his arguments in a meaningful way. Not just some trivial quib about their point or stance. You can genuinely from a philosophical and intellectual perspective make great points and its inspiring to watch. That being said no one is an absolute authority and just because it comes out of your mouth doesnt make it true or correct. I must admit im partial and tend to find your arguments mostly convincing. You are a precocious young man and a joy to learn from.
I am of different dispostion, so I will ask should it be the confidence, intellect and comprehension to make him inspirational how are you to know you are to believe him by his arguments and not by his charisma?
@@voxsvoxs4261 because although he is charismatic, in philosophy we judge peoples arguments on their arguments and not how charming they are. I judge his arguments on their own merit. He is inspirational because he is so young and passionate about philosophy with a great understanding.
One of the best interviews I've heard in a long time. Your questions were excellent, and really helped to clarify the more subtle points of the argument.
I like your face to face conversations because you get so much from body language. I also think that having travelled out to you vs just sitting at a computer your interlocutor might be more invested. But if I had to pick between your content existing in this format or never having existed I'm glad your content exists.
I got my tubes removed because I’m not sure if I even want children, but if I do, I want adopt. I don’t honestly see any reason to bring another kid into this world, when there are so many that need love.
But aren’t you assuming implicitly that you have it within your power as a parent to reduce the suffering of the child you’ve adopted with the love you give that child? If you don’t have it within your power to reduce that child’s suffering then what’s the point in adopting the child, if not for your own selfish interest to have a child. In which case, how’s that different from bringing your own child into the world and then giving the child the love you believe will reduce their suffering overall?
@@pascal8306 why wouldnt they have the power to reduce a childs suffering? If that child doesnt get adopted, itll fare much worse (for the most part). Youre kidding me if you dont see the difference between adopting a child and bringing a new life in.
@@userblame632 no I’m saying if they do have the power to reduce the adopted child’s suffering which I think they do, then why assume you wouldn’t have the power to do the same for a child of your own you brought into the world? Because the argument is that bringing a child into the world condemns them to suffering, and it’s implied aswell that that suffering is unredeemable, which makes it immoral to have children. But it’s clearly not unredeemable suffering if you’re capable of reducing the suffering of an adopted child.
@Abu Amanah Of the 3000 religions available, how many have you looked into? Seems intellectually dishonest for you to just select from the ones in your local environment.
@Abu Amanah I use the word Cosmos here, or simply Being. Some thing has always existed, and we are a part of it. When we die, it takes away our atoms to construct other shapes and organisms. There is no division between everything that we are and everything that IT is. Even now, you are a piece of the Cosmos...
@Abu Amanah I think that morality is objective. Life floods the physical and psychological 'spaces' of existence with variation (genes and memes) and 'discovers' the Truths to be found there.
@Abu Amanah The most real of all things is the structure that the genes and the memes survive. The things that are really True, all the time, are not context dependent.
@Abu Amanah Things are morally right or wrong whether you know them or not. The Truth is there nonetheless. You and I are an imperfect attempt at that truth. But it is there, always. Always true. We are variants of that discovery.
@@wifi2166 isn't the difference that in one case there's suffering for your own pleasure and in the other case there's caring for and loving another for pleasure?
@@JamieTwells ye, I did respond but looks like it got deleted? I basically said that just because you love and care for something, it doesn't make it ok.
I’m not having kids, not just because I find them very annoying but also because I can’t stand for someone else to experience mental illness, that’s runs in my genes. I’m also likely to be a bad parent, through the ways I’ve been brought up. My kids would have my genes. I wish that I was never born and I don’t want anyone else to go through that torment.
@Mary Whiterabbit If all your other experiences have been bad or neutral, how is it possible for you to think that being born was the best thing that happened to you, or are you being ironic?
Brilliant, thought provoking episode! Thank you very much. Also thank you very much for fighting just the right amount for your points, Alex. Diligent but not impolite.
@@Amor_fati.Memento_Mori if you enjoy this video, you'll appreciate true detective season 1. Any other show would mislead you by comparison. It is quite philosophical..and nihilistic, but also much more.
I was born into a family that was miserable, abusive, and constantly anxious. I was not a happy child. In the end, I transformed my experience into something meaningful and fulfilling through years of psychotherapy, leading to me studying psychology and working with abuse survivors. I can totally get the antinatalist side, even though I'm happy to exist after decades of mostly misery and dread. I honestly don't want to have kids, though.
You should make some videos about your experience and how you overcame your childhood and what you learnt through psychotherapy and in psychology that helped you to do so.
I think it's great you're still continuing the podcast in a safe way. I hope maybe next time there could be a pic with the interviewees name in the corner; I noticed that it helps me during similar situations on news interviews, especially with people I've only just learned about. Edit: I'm seeing comments about the guest choosing to not show his face in general; I would support any guest who feels that way, despite my preference.
Kill another human if you must. Just don't kill an animal to eat and admit that around here. You would be canceled quicker than you could say: "thin and pale"
@@michaelmagdy6647 Yea, you could classify this particular comment as a troll, that's fair. However the rating you gave it is obviously skewed heavily by your bias. It's a 6 at the very minimum.
@@kenhiett5266 Not really, you just think so high of yourself. Thin and pale is just a lame stereotype carnists like yourself like to describe vegans. You can obviously find thin and pale vegans and carnists alike. Obviously too there are more obese carnists than vegans and more thin vegans than carnists but whether one eats less or more than 2000 calories per day and whether they eat enough iron doesn't have anything to do with their moral position on killing animals and eating their carcasses. You're misinformed at best and dishonest at worst so 2/10 is pretty generous for your weak troll.
"[Being born is] a matter of growing up and realising you're expelled from your mother's uterus as if shot from a cannon, towards a barn door studded with old nail files and rusty hooks. It's a matter of how you use the intervening time in an intelligent and ironic way." /// Christopher Hitchens
I think of that quote quite often, given in such casual surroundings. He didn't present such sentiments much in his lectures and debates, though. I wonder what he would have made of the antinatalist/anti-existence argument more comprehensively expressed. Nowhere do I think he ever referred to Schopenhauer for example. But Hitch is the person I think I most would want still to be alive, in all the world.
“If ye unto your sons would prove, By act how dearly them ye love, Then every voice of wisdom joins To bid ye leave them in your loins.” - Abu Al-Ala Al-Ma’arri, syrian poet-philosopher from the Islamic golden age, 10th century (just sharing some ancient and old poetry in the comments)
Omg thanks letting me know that this badass existed, as an Arab ex Muslim vegan anti-natalist, I can finally look up to a philosopher from antiquity that I can identify with that isn’t western
A.S.M Oh, you hit the jackpot. Al-Ma’arri was a brilliant mind, way ahead of his time, and one of the people I look up to the most. I can send you more links with his texts, even in arabic. I can’t understand classical arabic, but it probably sounds much more beautiful in the original tongue. Here are some translations: www.humanistictexts.org/al_ma%27arri.htm PS: This coming from a vegan AN who is learning arabic
I do hope that you cover some more of the antinatalist arguments - consent, risk, etc. - in the future. I would like to hear your overall thoughts and analysis of these arguments.
Hats off to you once again, Alex! This is a brilliant episode and I love the depths to which you discuss such contentious and important topics with one of the finest minds embracing antinatalism as an actual branch of philosophy.
I am continually frustrated by the approach taken by analytic philosophy. So much focus on language, though never grounded in a clean understanding of a deep mind-body connection which can offer so much more understanding. Pain IS NOT “intrinsically bad.” Pain is intrinsically painful. We have to use that tautology to reveal the mental-emotional evaluation inherent in the word “bad.” Evaluating something as good/bad automatically positions us towards particular action. Generally speaking, most of us want to rid ourselves of “bad” things. The problem with this approach is that we can evaluate something as bad that should NOT be gotten rid of, but rather understood more deeply and therefore related to in a healthier way. Alex, you are awesome. This interview is great.
These are tough ethical questions, and they really have to be addressed. Thank you. It's one thing to vehemently disagree with Benatar, it's another to completely dismiss his arguments as ludicrous or "obviously wrong" based on reflexive moral intuition
Any actual present moral intuition would never disagree with Benatar. Everyone initially considers themselves moral, self awareness will always suggest your own desires don't get to warp reality. Actual morality is always larger than yourself.
@@pritamlaskar Yes I know but what makes one acceptable and the other not? If you say because justifying killing is ludicrous or obviously immoral, you just beg the question against the anti-humanism guy.
I wonder too what are the effects of our specific political, economic, and environmental circumstances on antinatalism. Right now I have no desire to bring a child into this world. But I could imagine a world where I'd consider it at least
If bring a child into existence is immoral, so is adoption. Buying a second-hand car is driving up demand and market volume for new cars due to the after-market effects. One equivalent argument in the children market is "don't get an abortion, you can always give it up for adoption", but there are a lot of more indirect ways in which the market works. To make things worse, adoption is _always_ traumatising for children (unlike for cars, which, as far as we know, don't have the ability to suffer). All other things being equal, adopted children are guaranteed to suffer more than non-adopted ones. I'm a sociopath, so I don't care either way, but if I were interested in reducing human suffering, I would certainly not support adoptions in any way or form.
Thomas S. Muhn I disagree. There is VERY low demand of adopted children, which is why orphanages are overrun all over the world. Adoption is one of the greatest ways to help orphans succeed in the world, have a support system in that family for life, and help them to lead a wholesome life into adulthood. If someone adopts an orphan, there is always a chance that the child could suffer in the new family. But I hardly see how they would fare better without a family in an orphanage that will make them homeless and have no support network once they turn 18. Plus,I really doubt people would ever think to have a kid just so that others could adopt them.
@@ThomasSMuhn When you adopt, you might be able to greatly improve the life of a person who is already exists. Of course, there should not be any financial interest for somebody to produce a child so it can be given away for adoption. But if the natural parents die or if they are not able to take care of the child, then adopting that child is a good thing. Still: The natural parents should not have procreated in the first place.
@@ThomasSMuhn Adoption doesn't cause harm to a child. if the child is already being put up for adoption then they could be an orphan, their parents may be unfit due to being in jail or on drugs, or the parents moght be unable to raise a child. the small harm in knowing you were adopted is greatly outweighed by the empirically better outcomes when children in these situations do get adopted.
I was a very sensitive child…, and came into a dreary pain filled household. . I would never take the chance my child would have to endure a repeat of that in any way. I was not selfish, I was aware of benetars view wo knowing it!! Bless him for bringing the question to the forefront for each of us to make on our own.
That's pessimism..in not having a child you might also be ensuring that someone misses the most love filled fulfilling life ever..af the end of the day we simply don't know...
Imagine being so weak you call yourself a sensitive child and you believe you’d make a horrible parent, and that you’d be so bad at parenting, and that anyone related to you would be so bad at living that you think it’s a better not to have a kid.
@@metamaggot I don't believe in anti-natalism but something good not happening is by definition not immoral, it's neutral. if there were no children to be born from now on that still wouldn't be as bad as 1 person dying. ofc adults want to have children as part of their lifes which they wouldn't be able to have in that case, which is bad, but there are also people who are infertile. by your definition everyone would have to have children even if they didn't want to, which is just ridicules honestly. once again I believe that giving birth and affirming life is a good thing but Im simply pointing out where you're mixed up.
@@SpicyBacon And if he dies through no fault of his own, damning his kid to live with an evil uncle or such - then what? You're playing Russian roulette with a child's future.
I don't know if I can claim to have a sound philosophical basis for my position on this topic, but I can't help but feel very strongly that is wrong to bring children into the world. Purely on an emotional level, I don't think I could conceive a child with a clear conscience, which I suspect is mostly a result of personal experience. I admit that this makes it very hard for me to be convinced by arguments that are based on abstract reasoning or semantics, as I see them. As someone who has struggled with depression and anxiety, I would feel unbelievably guilty and sad if my child felt anything resembling the pain and terror that I have felt in my worst moments. For me, the potential that a person brought into the world might feel those unspeakably terrible feelings, even if it were true that most people wouldn't suffer to that extent, is enough to convince me that children shouldn't be brought into the world. I just can't feel that it is right to just gamble, roll the dice, take that chance, when there is the potential for an outcome involving such acute suffering, however small the odds. Definitely not a position that I'd feel confident defending in a rational way, but it's so difficult for me to feel any other way.
@c B Thanks for your reply! I do wonder how much our ability to rationally evaluate this topic is affected by personal life experiences and genetic disposition. It would be interesting to know what percentage of people who disagree with antinatalism are people like yourself and what percentage of antinatalists are people like myself, if there were a way to measure that. If it is the case that most antinatalists have had a negative experience of life or are more depressive by nature, while most anti-antinatalists have a positive outlook on life and more cheerful dispositions, then surely that would throw into question whether either of their positions are actually founded on a solid epistemology? I can't help but suspect that emotion and intuition play a disproportionately large role when it comes to this topic.
@c B That's an interesting idea. If it's inevitable that humans will continue to be born, then at the very least it would be good for more of them to be genetically predisposed to being happy, so perhaps that would be one positive outcome of the antinatalist position, even from your point of view? That is, if it is the case that antinatalists are more prone to depression and whatnot.
Weak and nihilist point of view. Life is suffering. Your children will suffer no matter what. Your job as parent is to help them survive the fragility of life on Earth.
c B life is suffering in the sense it’s inevitable. This was said in response to a remark made about how they wouldn’t want there hypothetical children to suffer like they had. Although you could argue from navigating a tight birth canal, being born, growing teeth, hungry from wanting milk, the falls you have when learning to walk, the awkward stumbling through puberty and lessons you learn in adulthood is a whole lot of suffering with some intense happiness in between. That happens to most and that’s without the unexpected loss of a love one, long term illness or all the bad things that happen throughout our lives. Baring in mind your coming from a 21st century perspective. The humans before suffered a lot more for a lot less.
@@leonie3317 I'm confused by what you're trying to say. If you acknowledge that life involves suffering, then why would it be unreasonable for me to not want to bring a person into existence to experience that suffering, especially if there is the potential for that suffering to be extremely acute? Certainly I don't see how it is a weak and nihilistic point of view, although you haven't shown why nihilism is inherently bad or wrong anyways. I consider it to be quite an empathetic point of view, actually. And I don't have a job as a parent because I am not a parent and do not intend to be a parent? I will say life would be more pleasant if people like yourself had a bit more empathy and tact in online discussions :)
Dude, I need to thank you. I am not exactly an atheist (complicated), but your videos have really helped me really consider my views sensibly as I was raised pretty much to be a radical Christian, and have just in general helped me to be a better person. I forgot about this channel, but I remember watching your videos a few years ago. I don't agree with everything you've ever said, but nobody will, will they. Thanks again.
I don't believe in nothing, but I dont believe in God like Christianity or Islam. And by nobody will they I mean no two people will agree over literally everything
@@ShayAviv1000 by radical Christian I mean like taking the bible really seriously and making everything an issue to do with God and taking the Christian stance on literal everything
@@God.sDaughter Great authors don't go looking for books in the woods, they write them. There won't be a meaning you find one day between your couch cushions or somewhere out there, you either have to create it yourself, or laugh in the face of just how meaningless life is.
Love Alex's way of dealing with new (for the video of course not him) arguments. He always works from the ground up. Not having accepted any of the premises at the start of the video, he tries to reason his way to them. Excellent!
Antinatalism has existed since antiquity (the Gnostics and Cathars were antinatalists for instance) and came to its own in the XIX century with the great Arthur Schopenhauer.
@@cainandabel7059 There were many viewpoints held by different gnostic sects but it appears that at least some of them were against procreation because it was the cause that some of the divine element became encapsulated in the material (evil) element. By abstaining from procreation, these Gnostics thought that they were opposing the evil "demiurge" who created matter. www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Projects/Reln91/Gender/Gnosticism.htm There also were some who expressed antinatalist opinions within Judaism, such as the author of the "Book of Ecclesiastes"; as well as in the context of early Christianity (such as Augustine).
0:34: 🎙 In this episode, Professor David Benatar discusses antinatalism and its connections to veganism. 0:34: Professor David Benatar is a proponent of antinatalism, the view that it is immoral to have children. 0:55: His views have sparked controversy but also gained support. 1:09: Antinatalism is comprehensively explained in his book 'Better Never to Have Been'. 1:23: The podcast episode is filmed remotely due to the current pandemic. 1:39: Listeners can find the podcast on various streaming platforms. 2:04: The host considers doing more remotely filmed podcast episodes. 3:10: Some connections between antinatalism and veganism are discussed, such as the argument of benefiting animals by bringing them into existence. 4:03: There are additional assumptions that need to be made to connect the two views. 4:49: Antinatalism and veganism have numerous connections and interesting arguments. 6:07: 🗣 The video discusses the meta ethical foundation of antinatalism and the argument for why it is immoral to have children or bring new sentient creatures into existence. 6:07: The speaker argues that antinatalism does not presuppose a utilitarian approach or any specific ethical position. 7:26: The speaker believes that suffering is intrinsically bad, but it can also have instrumental value. 9:00: The speaker clarifies that when they say suffering is bad, they mean it is bad for the person involved. 10:10: The speaker argues that it is immoral to have children or bring new sentient beings into existence based on the consideration of suffering and the interests of the potential person. 10:52: 🤔 The video discusses the argument for antinatalism based on the axiological asymmetry and empirical asymmetries between pain and pleasure. 10:52: The argument for antinatalism is based on the belief that it is never in someone's interest to be brought into existence. 11:23: The axiological asymmetry states that the presence of pain is bad and the presence of pleasure is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad unless someone is deprived. 13:35: Empirical asymmetries explain why there is a significant amount of suffering in lives and contribute to the argument against bringing someone into existence. 15:11: Intuitions play a role in evaluating ethical views, but they should be subject to critical scrutiny. 16:06: 🤔 The video discusses the importance of considering intuitions in philosophical arguments and explores the concept of non-existence in relation to pleasure and suffering. 16:06: Intuitions should not be dismissed outright but subject to critical scrutiny. 16:42: Anti-natalists may have a strong intuition in favor of having children despite philosophical justifications. 17:22: The speaker emphasizes the need for reflective equilibrium in evaluating intuitions. 18:00: The speaker argues that non-existent individuals are neither deprived nor benefited by pleasure or suffering. 19:33: The speaker suggests adapting ordinary concepts to account for the unusual case of non-existence. 20:33: The speaker disagrees with treating the unusual case as the usual case. 20:48: The speaker presents an asymmetry between pleasure and suffering in relation to non-existence. 21:14: The speaker acknowledges the alternative route of treating non-existence differently but highlights its implications. 21:25: 🤔 The video discusses the concept of the asymmetry argument in antinatalism and explores objections to it. 21:25: The asymmetry argument in antinatalism suggests that it is morally wrong to bring a child into existence who would suffer greatly. 22:23: Objections to the asymmetry argument question why avoiding pain by not bringing a person into existence is considered bad. 23:11: The speaker argues that the asymmetry has explanatory value and solves certain problems in population ethics. 24:31: An objection to the asymmetry is that if life is really bad, there may be no obligation to bring new beings into existence. 25:41: The speaker acknowledges that the asymmetry may not be universally accepted and suggests evaluating it as a separate concept from antinatalism. 27:22: 🤔 The discussion explores the argument of antinatalism and its relationship to the asymmetry of existence. 27:22: The non-existent being is in a state of neutrality. 27:57: The asymmetry of existence compares scenarios of existence and non-existence. 28:44: The argument suggests that existing is worse than non-existing due to excess suffering. 29:06: The absence of suffering is seen as morally neutral rather than a positive good. 29:39: The comparison is made in terms of the interests of the being that exists. 30:49: Framing the absence of pain as a positive good is not problematic in this unusual case. 31:09: The argument can lead to antinatalism but is not directly against the asymmetry. 31:29: The discussion considers a hypothetical scenario with a majority of pleasure. 31:51: 💡 The discussion explores the asymmetry between pleasure and pain in relation to the existence and non-existence of individuals, and the implications for antinatalism. 31:51: The asymmetry between pleasure and pain is a key factor in determining whether existence is preferable to non-existence. 32:51: The argument for antinatalism does not necessarily require the asymmetry between pleasure and pain. 34:48: Existence is considered to have a higher bar to meet for its worthiness compared to non-existence. 35:40: Interests in continuing to exist may have moral worth, but can be outweighed by other interests. 36:01: The question of interests is complex, especially in relation to abortion and the taking of lives. 37:03: 🤔 The discussion revolves around the concept of harm and interests in relation to abortion and other scenarios. 37:03: The question of whether a being that doesn't exist has interests of moral relevance is raised. 37:33: The speaker argues that the person on the train being unaware of a terminally ill person becoming healthy doesn't necessarily benefit them. 38:34: A case is presented where the destruction of someone's work after their death raises the question of whether their interests have been set back. 39:23: The concept of harm is discussed, with the understanding that suffering is a measure of harm. 40:16: The speaker argues that if their future self doesn't exist, preventing their suffering or pleasure is not a bad thing. 40:59: The argument is made that if someone is painlessly killed without their knowledge, it could be considered a good thing. 41:46: The complexity of decriminalizing painless murder is acknowledged, considering the potential secondary effects and panic it may cause. 42:04: The idea of not harming someone by killing them is challenged, considering the moral implications and potential increase in suffering. 42:37: 💀 The video discusses the debate on whether death is bad for the person who dies, with the speaker arguing that death is not inherently bad for the individual. 42:37: The speaker argues that if a person is killed without their knowledge and without experiencing pain, it makes no sense to say that death is bad for them. 42:48: The speaker acknowledges that it may be bad for other people involved in the act of killing, but not for the person who dies. 43:22: The argument presented is based on the Epicurean view, which suggests that death is not inherently bad because it does not cause harm or suffering to the person who dies. 44:22: The speaker acknowledges that there is no definitive knockdown response to disprove the Epicurean view, but argues that a balance of different considerations supports the view that death is bad for the individual. 46:31: The speaker mentions that antinatalism, the belief that it is morally wrong to bring new people into existence, can also be applied to the idea that it is not bad for a person to die. 47:35: 🤔 The discussion revolves around the Epicurean view of death and antinatalism, exploring the idea of whether death is good or bad and the potential suffering prevented by not having children. 47:35: The Epicurean view of death is that it is somewhat neutral, as it has no effect on the person who dies. 48:42: The speaker questions the asymmetry argument in antinatalism, suggesting that if one cannot say it is bad to not experience pleasure, then one cannot say it is good to not suffer. 49:20: The discussion touches on the idea of one's future self being different from the non-existent person becoming an existing person. 50:44: The speaker mentions that there are good and bad ways of bringing about human extinction, and expresses opposition to a painful method that would cause suffering for existing people. 51:27: The speaker raises a hypothetical scenario of a government having the power to wipe out all sentient life on Earth, but it would be a painful process. They question whether the suffering prevented by not having future generations would outweigh the suffering caused by the extinction process. 52:54: ❓ The philosopher discusses the moral implications of causing the extinction of all life on Earth. 52:54: Different moral theories may yield different answers regarding the permissibility of causing phased extinction. 54:00: The practical question of knowing the conditions and consequences of causing extinction looms large. 54:39: Playing God and making decisions for all of humanity is viewed as dangerous. 55:09: Limited responsibilities and preventing suffering within reasonable capabilities is emphasized. 55:32: Practicalities and potential negative effects on individuals involved should be considered in moral judgments.
56:32: Granting hypothetical knowledge, the moral obligation of painful extermination depends on one's moral theory. 57:05: Utilitarians may be hesitant to endorse painful extermination due to potential misuse and harm. 57:34: The scale of the case is important in considering the moral implications. 57:34: Deontologists may acknowledge the misery caused by not pressing the button, but still argue against doing so based on rights. 57:47: 💭 The video discusses the ethical implications of bringing someone into existence and the decision-making authority of competent beings. 57:47: A deontologist may argue that it is not within their rights to kill a person suffering from a terminal disease, even if they believe it would relieve them of suffering. 58:17: The scenario of one person suffering from a terminal disease is different from the scenario of bringing billions of people into existence, as the former involves a competent being while the latter involves a non-existing being. 59:47: While one may believe a competent being is wrong in their decision, interfering with their choices is not justified. 1:00:19: Preventing the existence of a person would prevent all the potential harm and suffering they may experience, making it a clear choice. 1:00:35: The hypothetical scenario of time travel and erasing one's existence is confounding and unreliable in terms of obtaining a reliable judgment. 1:01:35: People's counterfactual judgments about their own existence are often unreliable. 1:02:08: Comparing the unreliable judgment in the time travel scenario to the judgment of a dying person who believes their future will be bad. 1:02:40: 🤔 The conversation explores the ethical implications of time travel and the decision to terminate someone's life. 1:02:40: The decision-making process for a past self is questioned. 1:02:40: The conversation touches on the concept of existing and non-existing individuals. 1:02:49: The conversation raises hypothetical scenarios that require moral consideration. 1:03:01: The decision to terminate someone's life should be deferred to the competent individual themselves. 1:03:16: The hypothetical scenario of time travel and decision-making is not a real decision. 1:03:45: The discussion leaves many issues unresolved and open for further consideration. 1:03:59: The audience is encouraged to think about these ethical questions. 1:04:12: The conversation acknowledges the lack of a firm answer to the ethical questions. 1:04:27: The video is supported by Patreon and encourages viewers to engage in further discussions. Recap by Tammy AI
I really like how you don`t take practical application arguments at face value and tend to rely on propositions that could actually be show to have some truth value in a propositional logic sort of sense. The fact that you challenge your interviewee`s points in this manner and don`t accept intuition based arguments when they don`t address the inconsistencies is refreshing. This makes these interviews much more interesting to listen to than say having the guest summarize their view in the way that they feel comfortable.
My first introduction to this as an actual, formalized concept, and I dig it immensely. Could never really resolve, internally, the typical justifications child-bearers would present, such as religious, social, traditional, species, romantic, to name a few...yet will hold off labeling myself until I conduct more research. The “Question Everything” philosophy rings many bells for me.
My girlfriend, soon to be fiance then wife, can't have any kids and that's one of the reasons I want to marry her. I see kids as a burden and have no desire to have them and I'm also very very pessimistic when it comes to the quality of life for future generations.
Just because she can't give birth to children doesn't mean she doesn't want children, it's still going to be worth talking about so you are on the same page
@@henryginn7490 I neglected to mention that we did talk about and she does have kids already that are in college at this point. She also stated that she didn't want kids either so we've definitely talked about it as kids is something I definitely do not want at all.
IMHO the future generations will have much better life than current and past generations. Just compare the life of people in mediveal age with people today especially in the developped world.
All the good steps we have made as a society can be destroyed in one day by a man with loose lips and a platform. Look at how Andrew Tate effected young men in a few weeks.
I would say, just based on a lifetime of experience, that most pain in life is caused by others forcing us to live their preconceived way. If we were truly free, I feel we would all have a MORE happy life than we currently do. Just my opinion of course.
I'm from South Africa and have never heard of David well to be fair I haven't really looked into the morality of having children. I'm glad this came up because now I have an interest and need to start digging 😋
If the presence of suffering is bad for an existing person, and the absence of suffering in a non-existent person is good because neutral is better than bad, then absence of pleasure cannot be "not bad", it should be, by that same reference, considered bad because in that case it would be neutral versus good ( presence of pleausure being good ), and neutral is worse than good, just like it is better than bad
IMO not being born is neutral . being born is either good or bad . The reason you should not give birth is because you are making a gamble. The gamble is unnecessary because unborn babies don't desire existence
@Peace Prevails Atheists should not ignore the following truths, regarding the source of evil, respectively why here is not Heaven: God/Jesus is not a dictator, but the opposite. That is why this reality (this Universe) has been created intentionally so that freedom to be offered 100%. Most unbelievers of the truth do not know the *"Parable of the weeds".* The fallen angels have created all the evil living things such as: parasites, viruses, bad bacteria ..., besides all insects and animals that kill other insects or animals, also the bad instincts in humans (the reptilian brain), by altering our DNA (since the "apple" event mentioned in the Bible). *Initially all insects, animals etc. were feeding only with plants (plants products, such as fruits, nectar, seeds etc.).* Humans had to continue living after betraying the Creator, by listening to His enemy, Satan, who is actually the god of this world, in a Creation corrupted by the fallen angels, after the Creator "has abandoned" this planet to let us see how evil, humans without God/Jesus, can be. We see this everyday and suffer the bad consequences of the stupid=evil people's deeds, tools of Satan. The fallen angels, being sadistic, have altered the DNA of most living things (including us) to do as default both: reproduce uncontrollably (as much as they can) and fight (kill) each other. Unfortunately, they love to see living things suffering, especially human beings suffering. The Bible mentions clearly that Satan is the god of this world (for example in Corinthians). Therefore, all havoc, all stupidity=evilness, respectively all the useless suffering etc. and immorality/promiscuity are sustained by the fallen angels, ruled by Satan. We still can live and even be happy sometimes, in this short earthly life, because of God's mercy and love for us, which keeps some limitations for the fallen angels, otherwise Apocalypse will happen. *The fallen angels want to destroy us since our conception (actually, all the time in any way possible). That is why they make us suffer, as much as possible, by using our stupidity and the stupidity of the other people around us.* Satan, the one who deceives the whole world (Rev. 12:9), wants to corrupt, pervert, and twist everything what God has made. Anyone should know already the main commandment from Jesus Christ (the human form of Divinity), *besides to love / respect our Heavenly Father, to love / respect (care for) the other humans as we love / respect (care for) ourselves, besides the 10 commandments. Also the commandment from God to not use freedom wrongly (for evil), **_"For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God."_** 1* Peter 2,15 *In addition, God (the Creator) is perfect. **_"Be perfect therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect"_* Matthew 5, 48 *All the parts that contradict the above truths are alterations done by the tools of Satan, over the last about 2000 years, to manipulate humans.* Satan, who is the god of this world (as mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4, 4), has deceived too many people, unfortunately. *Most unbelievers fight against the truth because they want to remain able to continue with their bad addictions.* Demons are glad whenever we are stupid enough to sin, to produce useless suffering (any damage) to others and to ourselves, to lose our holiness, to not be forgiven/saved anymore, in this way they gaining our soul in hell. Not all humans who ever lived on Earth had knowledge about the truth from the Bible. *Our deeds matter* (are the most important for saving our immortal soul) not the labels assigned to us, such as: Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu... *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10 _"O foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is worthless?"_ James 2, 20 _"In the same way, faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is dead."_ James 2, 17 _"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."_ James 2, 24 *_"For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God."_* 1 Peter 2,15 In addition, Jesus Christ has warned us: _"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; _*_depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"_* Matthew 7, 21-23 Watch entirely and carefully the following two testimonies (those two men tell the truth): "NDE- ATHEIST PROFESSOR (Berkeley Grad) dies, sees HELL! Best testimony EVER! Howard Storm Interview". "Man Sees Unthinkable Horrors in Hell - Christians Being Tortured! (Mario Martinez)". Therefore, the believing of the truth revealed by God/Jesus will help/convince/determine... you to always strive to do only good for the rest of your earthly life, to be much easier for you at the Judgment, to go into Heaven before many others, to never taste hell, to be more loved by Divinity, but *ALL humans will be judged for their deeds* (watch entirely those two videos mentioned above).
Someone keeps deleting my explanatory message about the deceiving done by Satan. I will post only the beginning of it, maybe it will not be removed again. _"Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe."_ 2 Corinthians 4, 4 _Satan, the one who deceives the whole world (Rev. 12:9), wants to corrupt, pervert, and twist everything what God has made._
I will try to post the next parts of it in smaller messages to not be deleted again by that "someone". However, Satan has been already stopped, but we live in our time and that is why mankind has to live until we arrive to that moment of Apocalypse (when Satan and all the fallen angels are defeated, in our perception/time). That is why the Bible has exact prophecies, like the followings listed below:
@Peace Prevails This is the third smaller message / part from the one which has been deleted (hopefully these smaller ones will not be deleted): - The future will be like in the days of Sodom. Luke 17, 28-30 This is exactly what we see happening today with gay marriage laws and strong public support for the homosexual lifestyle. - People will deny that GOD created the universe. 2 Peter 3:3-9 This is exactly what we see happening. Atheists are now claiming that the universe created itself out of nothing.
@Peace Prevails Next smaller part: - The message of the Gospel will reach all the nations. Matthew 24,14 Remember that Christianity started out with only a few dozen followers. The Bible prophesying that its message will reach the world is proof of its divine inspiration. - TRUE Christians will be hated and killed just because of their faith. Matthew 24, 9 - The future will become frightening. Luke 21, 26 (just few examples: the global warming terrific effects, the third world war final preparations, Corona virus etc.)
“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.” - Albert Camus The problem with this anti-natalism argument is that it begs the question, claiming that a life with any amount of pain isn’t worth living, without ever substantiating how it can prove that claim to be objectively true. It’s somewhat intuitive that no amount of pleasure can “justify” any amount of pain. What’s not intuitive is if there is or isn’t a sort of “purpose” that could justify pain. This is the questions Camus is proposing, “Does life have an intrinsic value that justifies the pain of living?” This anti-natalism argument assumes the answer to that question is “No.” without ever offering any proof of that being the case.
Daniel JP It utilizes the pin-prick analogy, unnecessary harm done to an unconsenting individual, and the pain does not serve any real purpose - it is an unnecessary need that did not need to exist.
Bfmvgirl2000 That would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say if life itself had no intrinsic value. But that has yet to be proven one way or the other. This is precisely the point I’m making in my comment.
Eagle Boy I think that’s a false analogy it. It assumes that there could be no possible purpose for the pinprick. The question we’re asking is, “Is there a purpose to life (that is not pleasure) which could justify life’s suffering.”
Static Charge Red Field I appreciate your thoughtful response, it’s very well articulated. I’m afraid that it misses the point of what I was trying to shed light on. Namely, that no one has offered up any proof that life has no purpose which might account for the suffering of life. There might very well not be a purpose. But unless you prove that there’s not it’s not fair to completely discount that as a possibility or at the very least, if you’re going to propose an idea like anti-natalism (which by the way I am not particularly against) you should preface it by saying, “By the way, this is assuming that life has no intrinsic purpose or value.” If the argument was prefaced by a clause like that then any reasonable person could agree, “Yes. IF that were true then anti-natalism would be a responsible conclusion. As a quick end note: DNA (nor any Science for that matter) can not explain consciousness, the state of living, or why there is something rather than nothing. These are the core mysteries that lead one to have a reasonable suspicion that perhaps “life” is more than just a balance of pain and pleasure.
I find it interesting that Prof. Benatar at times appears to suggest you must either be anti-natalist or Ultra-Pro-Natalist (you must have all the children you could have). This comes from the times he challenges Alex with questions like: "Why are you not having kids right now?". Just because someone is not against having children, it does not logically follow that they must believe everyone should constantly be having children.
I've also come to the conclusion that Prof. Benatar has no views other than the core truth of anti-natalism... because he answers every question with: "Depends on what view point you hold." Even when Alex asks him directly what his view point is, he sidesteps the question. Seems rather cowardly, at least give us a: "My instincts would be X, but I haven't fully worked it out." rather than nothing...
If giving birth to children is intrinsically good and you consider yourself a good person, then why wouldn't you bring the highest amount of children into this world as possible? It begs the question; Do you bring life into this world out of the goodness of your heart or is it an expression of egotistical desires just to have a child? I'd argue it's the latter. That having a baby is essentially not about bringing a new person into life but the personal enjoyment you get from having that baby born.
@@lameduck3105 do you apply this same logic to all good things? It is good to give to those poorer then you (and there will almost always be someone poorer than you). Does that mean you are giving away everything all of the time to the maximum amount possible? Of course not. Because failing to do a good thing is not the same as doing a bad thing. Just because I think doing something is good to do, does not commit me to do it constantly as much as possible.
@@LoopFlare No I don't give away all my belongings to those less fortunate even though that woulld be seen as a good thing. Which just proves my point that we don't just procreate because it is intrisically good but because it fulfills some of our desires. That is, we ultimately create babies for our own personal pleasure and not because we want to see an independent human being come into existence. Giving birth is at it's core a selfish decision to enrich your life with someone else's being and not a matter of simply bringing someone into existence out of the goodness of your heart. Therefore, if giving birth is seen as a good thing and not an selfish act, you'd be motivated to bring as many children into the world as possible. If giving money to the poor wasn't about making you feel good about yourself I don't think anyone would give them money, food or shelter. In essence I believe we are all "narcissists" in that sense that we only do things to feel good about ourselves.
Although i always agreed with this thought having it talked about throughly was rough to hear. Definitely gave me a mid life crisis kinda of vibe and honestly i needed that to truly look at what i am doing with it. Weirdly enough I appreciate this video
I feel like Alex was asking all the right questions, and instead of answering them David just resorted to ''well, through my own research I've arrived at a different conclusion'' instead of revealing what arguments made him arrive at said conclusion, or diverted by saying that '' there are too many issues brought up at once. '' That became apparent to me when they were discussing the Epicurean argument which, if correct, essentially undermines the assymetry argument. Instead of explaining why he doesn't agree with the argument, David just stated what I roughly quoted above, and kind of started going in circles without actually answering Alex's questions.
EDIT: After listening further, I realize that this is the argument which Alex toys with for the next 12 minutes. I'm amazed by the way that Benatar dances around this point, despite Alex's highly articulate statements and restatements of the objection. My response to the scenario that David Benatar presents around 21:50 is that yes, it's immoral to reproduce if you have good reason to believe that their life will be utterly miserable. However, it's also immoral to avoid reproduction if you have good reason to believe that their life will be good. This is why I find his axiological asymmetry argument unconvincing.
It's not immoral to avoid reproduction if you have good reason to believe they'll have a good life. "Good reason" isn't sound logic, and "good reason" isn't certainty - if you don't have an impossible level of certainty, you risk bringing a child into the world who has a risk of suffering; you're playing Russian roulette. The only way to win is to not play.
@@acex222Determining, with a high amount of logic and certainty, that the child will be happy, even though it’s not completely certain or even if the likelihood of the child being unhappy is there to a smaller degree, is good enough (given more specific likelihoods of the amount of happiness and unhappiness that is at stake as well). The upsides are greater than the downsides, so it’s worth it.
i have feeling you have to be really rigorous as antinatalist in your poursuit of compassion if not you are huge hipocrat and i think most antinatalist are hipocrats in that regards
17:51 Alex you presented your argument clearly and concisely six or seven times over the course of the next SIXTEEN minutes that the lack of suffering of a person who doesn't exist is neutral; not a good thing. The professor refused to answer or even acknowledge your question time and again. Even at 30:40 where he finally says "No", his explanation doesn't address the question you're asking. Well done for persevering though.jj
It's a matter of perspective. The first time I read of the asymmetry, I couldn't wrap my head around it for a very long time. Alex's position considers individual states while Benatar's position considers two states simultaneously.
@@jamesrockybullin5250 not sure if he addressed it in this video specifically but he voiced the reasons why he chose not to portray it as neutral. It's a long video however so I'm just gonna say go watch the first few minutes of the addendum video. I think he dives right into why there iirc
@@ChowMeinChowdown I did, and I just relistened to it. He agrees with Alex that the absence of pain and the absence of pleasure in a non-existent person is neutral. He then says that the absence of pain (in a non-existant person) is good in a comparative sense. He says the absence of pain in a non-existing person is better than the presence of pain in an existing person. This is trivially true. But it does not prove that the absence of pain is good. It only says (tautologically) that it is better than the presence of pain, which could be less bad but still bad, neutral, or good. You're not going to convince me that pushing the fat man on the tracks is a good outcome. It's still a tragedy, it's just better than five people dying. If we can't establish that the absence of pleasure and pain is neutral, what the hell would neutral be?
That was exactly my problem with Benatar. His method of 'answering' Alex's questions was to be evasive. He kept dodging Alex's argument by stating it would be best to assume a special case which pretty much ended up being a cop out. He never supported why a special case was needed and an argument from the viewpoint of Occam's razor would state that if Alex could arrive to the antinatalist conclusion in far less steps and without creating a 'special situation' from which to arrive to his conclusion then it is better to argue from Alex's point of view. That is unless Benatar could demonstrate why his scenario had more ontological value. And as many times as Alex provided him to do so Benatar never stepped up to the plate to show why the antinatalist argument needed a 'special case' to justify his position. Rather he waffled on needlessly. I admire Alex for putting up with him. It was so painful watching to the end of this video after I realized how pedantic and how lacking in intellectual stimulation Benatar's argument was going to be. At least Alex kept it interesting with his hypotheticals.
This may be way too off-brand for this channel, but the manga for Attack on Titan is discussing a lot of these very same ideas in a very interesting way. It would be very interesting to hear Alex give a philosophical/moral analysis of that story.
@@fragrantbloom True. It also differs in that he only believes a specific minority of individuals should not reproduce. But, I think the story still grapples a bit with the core question of anti-natalism insofar as it touches on the idea that existence or being born exposes one to a great deal of pain, suffering and hardship that could be avoided otherwise.
Amazing! I really like what you said about your future self being just like a potential child. I agree that death cant be a harm on its own. If you tell someone youre about to kill them painlessly and they start panicking. Their panic is the real harm youre causing.
@@ChickpeatheTortie most people are surprised by their fear of death when the time comes. But youre right, theres also lots of people who dont care about death, which is good because theyre probably living life well if theyre actually still alive
33:33 Alex made an insightful point that emphasizes the significance of asymmetry in reaching an anti-natalist conclusion. If asymmetry is necessary, one would conclude that it is always wrong to bring a new life into the world. However, if there is no asymmetry in non-existence, then in a situation where there is a net pleasure to be experienced, it may be morally wrong not to bring life into existence.
@Survivalist395 Nor did I say, he said anything about purpose. I do accept however, my word choice failed to adequately articulate my position. As I understand it, Professor Benstars' argument is based on non existence in order to avoid suffering. In my opinion, if existence is not just the primary but (only) objective, all considerations after the subject is said to exist, may be disregarded. Especially subjective considerations such as suffering or the lack there of. Existence is part of the universal equation and well beyond the ethical regard or reproach of those that equate to nothing more than its variables.
But he never said this. He acknowledges that life is meaningless. What he is discussing is the value of existence for the individual brought into existence.
I think it's strange to come to the conclusion that you know people have more suffering in their life than happiness, even though they might say otherwise and might say that they are glad that they lived their life. It reminds me of Jordan Peterson when he says "Life is about suffering", and I think it would be just as correct to say that "Life is about happiness". In the end it only says something about the person who makes the statement and how they experience life themselves.
@@mindlander But we wouldn't exist if everyone thought that way. No one would. It's just impossible for people to have a say in the matter for whether their existence gets to begin or not. So why do you think it's immoral? Do you think it's because it's safe to assume that the average life has more suffering than pleasure/happiness or well-being?
@@mindlander In your first reply you mentioned that it's immoral no matter the outcome. If we imagine a case where we are well informed, and we can expect a future child to lead a good life if they are brought to this world, and they are brought to the world and leads a good life, where is the immorality? Can you elaborate on that?
@@Kanzu999 first, you can't know that. Second, a good life does not necessarily mean a happy life. Rich people are miserable and commit suicide all the time.
It's a wonderful work you're doing Alex. Bringing Benatar is definitely a high on this show. I've listened to his last discuss with Jordan Peterson but that's about 3 years ago, so it's wonderful to hear him again on one of my favorite podcasts. He's sort of a hero to me.
The basic is to understand suffering. Is suffering actually an inherent aspect of life? That is not an idealistic question, but one which comes from actuality itself. Suffering has few causes, from ignorance, to comparison, to total self indulgence. Ignorance is my preferred word, as it sums up every aspect of suffering. From wandering around in a daze and stubbing one's toe, to endlessly reacting emotionally to triviality of all sorts due to a desire for control, to grief to heartbreak, etc. If we look at our lives, we see we are indeed the origin of our own suffering. That is not denying aspects of purely physical pain, as in toothache, which is usually a result of ignorance again, neglecting to feed the body the correct nutrients, not cleaning the teeth, etc. Sure, we can break a bone, and that may or may not hurt, but is that really a cause of suffering? It's the same with so many so-called diseases or illnesses, which are a direct result of accumulated years of neglect due to ignorance; dementia, heart disease, diabetes, MS, ME, parkinson's, etc... and yes, that may indeed be the result of parental/ancestral ignorance too. There really is no cause of suffering unless we make our own suffering. I may be immobile for whatever reason, that does not mean I have to suffer. I may have no money, that does not mean I have to suffer. I may not have a Rolls Royce and drive an old Fiat 500, that does not mean I have to suffer. Someone close has just died, that does not mean I have to suffer. I may be imprisoned, but that does not mean I have to suffer. As for the child issue. I would consider it cruel to have a child if I considered life to be purely physical, and for us to be mere machines as some believe. All suffering is optional and entirely needless.
I save most of Alex videos for future references when discussing atheism with Christians and Muslims, the proselytizing religions. There is a cornucopia of misinformation about atheism out there and Alex is particularly well informed which informs me with very useful information I use to debunk arguments about what atheism is defined by the religious. Good job bud, keep it up because we need desperately a voice of reason like yours
It's honestly quite frightening how quickly people dismiss what David says and how adamantly they'll defend having children as if it's actually immoral not to. Very strange.
Perhaps it's because David's arguments are weak and when put under scrutiny he just deflects every time or just straight up says "nah, I feel like what I think is true" without elaborating. It's wild how utilitarian his views are while claiming they aren't.
I disagree with some points but im agnostic on his end point. There are fairly good pushbacks (Alex levels many) but most responses against benatar seem to be childish and are made by people that seem to have no understanding of his points.
How on earth is it strange behavior? Most biological organisms including humans are hardwired to want to reproduce. Definitionally, it’s a quite normal behavior and or line of thought
It's because biologically we all know that discouraging child baring is disadvantageous to the continuation of the species so claiming it to be immoral is essentially an attack on our very own existence it's no simple philosophical discussion about bread and butter we are talking about life itself here.
I'm an antinatalist, yet there was a time when I saw the value of me being born. The latest years of my mother's life I took care for her. Had I not been born, she would have spend them much more miserable. I fulfilled the goal of my life, that was: to outlive my parents. Although I miss them, my life is easier now, because that responsibility isn't there anymore.
On the flip side of your situation - my mother is an abusive alcoholic and because of that she will die alone and miserable if it's left up to me. So, there has never been and will never be value to my existence.
It drives me nuts that I keep finding topics I agree with Alex on! Lol. Then again, the reasoning that leads us to the conclusion is also important. There's plenty of other channels I'm watching that disagree with me. I should just enjoy having at least one place where people agree with me. (Compared to, the Father is the "ultimate authority," that I grew up with, it feels odd.)
@@katie6384 I believe at 25:10 he states that he's not accepting it personally at the moment, but I might have misunderstood him (they were discussing different premises and he could have just been saying that he disagrees with the premises)
I find myself agreeing with a number of things that I once thought to be incorrect and now stand aside from many people I know on several different philosophical topics. However, no matter how often I give the antinationalist argument a chance and listen to it, I still can not accept all of their premises, nor their conclusion. I keep giving it a shot, but I think this is one philosophical stance I don't see myself taking anytime soon.
@@aronchai I don't care specifically about that, but I like the idea that more people choose not to have children, and therefore create less human pressure on the planet. I think there is a non-freewill argument here. i.e. most people believe they want/should have children, largely driven by reproductive drives. For whatever reason, I "choose" not to want to have children. Most people will not have that choice.
This was an engaging and interesting conversation in my opinion. My initial reaction to this, especially considering that I’ve read ‘Better Never to have been’ and Benatar’s more recent book ‘The Human Predicament’ and thought they were beautifully written and very well argued books, was that he came up short against Alex and did not represent his position well. However, upon listening to this conversation a 2nd time have recognized a couple of things, alongside having my perspective toward their conversation updated and ultimately changed. 1. This is an immensely difficult topic and our initial reaction will be very much guided by our personal bias for or against the position. In other words, your first impression, though strong and emotional, doesn’t account for much. You have to keep digging. 2. Alex’s patience in reiterating his points was not simply for the sake of being cordial or gentlemanly, but because professor Benatar’s objections were quite well founded and Alex’s follow up questions did indeed often deviate from there starting point of the topic at hand, and Benatar was simply trying to monitor this so as to avoid the discussion becoming too multilayered for its own good. 3. Professor Benatar’s argument style is quite different than Alex’s, giving the impression that they were not particularly well suited for a debate since their styles tended to jump around each other, but in reality (upon 2nd listen) they had a type of conversation that some of us are a bit impatient with and therefore rather dead to, i.e. nuanced and probing rather than knockdown and brutal. It’s disappointing to me that so many people who comment on these debates have never read Benatar’s work, and I, like Alex, urge you to do so if you haven’t. I haven’t really heard an argument (including most of Alex’s here) that he doesn’t address in his books and other works, so if you have a disagreement you will most likely be able to find them in his work. I’m not interested in debating here as it tends to be people just wanting to name call and put down, so my comment is more in favor of relistening to this episode if you felt frustrated by it on first exposure. It is in no way a stand in for Benatar’s books as I think we expect take down after take down when listening to a debate, especially when you consider the weight of the topic, but his books do exactly what they need to. That is, approach a profoundly difficult and heavy subject with careful consideration and respect for other views, while showing how they are deeply mislead, even though they are often more intuitive. Again, just a plea to actually read the work of a philosopher instead of listening to one podcast and assuming you know everything you need to know about the subject, thus strawmanning the position. Wonderful content and I learned quite a bit upon 2nd listen. Thank you
20:38 I'd push back on that. For a person who is alive, the deprivation of pleasure is not intrinsically bad. The suffering that results from pleasure deprivation is why it's bad.
To me, Whatever happens, happens, but I will not put another human being on this planet and condemn him/her to the pains and horrors of life. The first two decades of life are fun, but after that, life is shitty for almost everyone. You have to be really really lucky to lead a life devoid of any painful situations in life. Given those odds, it's definitely morally wrong to reproduce.
For a non native English speaker It was a bit heavy conversation to follow, but i think the fact that I've been an antinatalism myself for 4 years now helped to kinda get the most of it .
in my analysis of life I completely agree with benatar we're birthed,forced to go to school,work,compete,forced to become wage slaves,we're essentially slaves,to our very own demanding biological requirements,forced to do chores,essentially 99% of our lives,is usually spent,doing things,we rather not be doing better,to not have been born Pain is intrinsically bad conception is pleasurable,and natural this is where the 'deception' begins and then from there we're birthed through 'pain' birthed into 'pain' and many of us,will suffer a very 'painful' death as well. this life is torturous,we're forced,to struggle,everday,for our very basic human needs.
My interpretation is different though. I see it as though I have the privilege of living, loving, being educated, facing challenges, struggling, fighting against the odds, pursuing goals, until it's game over. I'm not saying my interpretation is more accurate, only different.
@@lucioh1575 I assume that he views the negative consequences of legitimizing promortalism to a large audience to outweigh the good of engaging with the hypotheticals
@@aronchai Perhaps, yes. I'm a promortalist myself but perhaps some other less mentally stable ones could see it as a good idea to do mass shootings and such.
I can answer the asymmetry: you can always regret being born but you can never regret not existing because you didn't exist in the first place Also, that was good point about it. If you think NOT creating someone deprives them of pleasure AND that is a bad thing, how can you justify not creating as many people as possible? So you either accept the asymmetry that deprivation of pleasure on potential existence is neutral and that deprivation of harm on potential existence is good, OR you realize you've done wrong by not reproducing to the maximum
Counterpoint to that statement: It would be that reproducing past a certain point would lead to an increase in suffering for the potential person because of a decline in resources. The correct answer would be reproduce to the largest amount that the new individuals would receive a certain quality in life.
I'm almost grateful to those who are nihilistic towards life in the comments section because your lack of inspiration fills me with resolve to bare the pain I shall face in the future and fills me with courage that I shall bare it successfully for I have something you all lack; hope.
Even being lucky and privileged I have never saw life as a net positive for myself. I honestly never got why people are so hype to be alive. It's MOSTLY tedious. And the happiest I've ever felt isn't worth the worst I've ever felt. I'd have chosen not to be born looking back lol. I'm to scared to end it tho so I just suck it up
i think at the end of the day, in the grand scheme of things, life is meaningless. because of that i appreciate life and shit. it dosen't matter anyway, so i just try and enjoy it.
The key point here is that once you exist and you suffer, you are then forced to make a choice of whether to continue existing or not. Anti-natalism solves that. No need of any action.
Please note: Professor Benatar requested that we film a brief followup conversation to clarify some points, which can be found here: ua-cam.com/video/YGL2r8PNb8c/v-deo.html
What a great way to resume the Cosmic Skeptic Podcast! I have some episodes lined up to record and to release, let me know if you have any suggestions for guests.
Thanks Alex, looking forward to the conversation!
I would really like to see David Pearce on your podcast. Look up his stuff about wild animal suffering. Cheers
Would love for you to somehow get Julia Annas or Rosalind Hursthouse in to discuss virtue ethics.
Markus Gabriel is very popular in europe. Also (as has been suggested) David Pearce would make a great guest to introduce topics related to transhumanism and the philosophy of technology.
Count me supportive of remote podcasts ASAP vs waiting for in-person. Thanks, and peace.. and bSAFE!
I think an interview with Herman Daly on the ethics and morality of degrowth and ecology would be right up your ally
I love how Alex isn't afraid to challenge those who he interviews, even when he ultimately agrees with them, this makes them think on the spot, which is sth you don't see very often in this kind of respectful encounters.
unfortunately just like with Singer, they're not as quickl/smart as he is, luckyly this time the guest came back to clarify after having had more time to understand Alex's points! :)
Do we know what Alex's opinions are on antinatalism? I know he finds it an interesting idea but do we know if he's swayed by it?
@@katie6384 in another video I remember him saying if he was logical he would push the button... but who knows indeed, and who cares?
@@remitemmos9165 oh interesting, thank you. And I'm just curious to know if he was playing devil's advocate or actually disagreed with David Benatar
@@katie6384 I think he's smart enough to play devil's advocate and to me that makes no difference because of that ;) (in a good way)
To all the people asking why David Benatar does not reveal his face- just imagine the amount of scrutiny regarding his persona and remember that there are religious wackos out there sending threats . It is totally understandable imho.
I think hes shown it before?
Eh, what ideas don’t get you threatened nowadays? Especially over the internet.
All you have to do is Google David Benatar images and you'll see his face.
I've met Christians who were antinatalist actually. But it's true that the general religious theist will repel this idea. Lol
Not just religious wackos. To take such a stance is a huge affront to women. The entire premise of most womens existence is having children. I've had this discussion with both men and women and women become very severe and reactionary.
Alex: Can you explain why we shouldn't commit suicide?
UA-cam: This is probably a good time for a commercial break
"We'll be right back"
Doesn’t the UA-camr decide where the ads go?
manifold I’d love to have one. Which one works for an iPad though?
You joke, but this is exactly what veganism/self-loathing leads to.
@@kenhiett5266 how does veganism lead to that? Veganism rejects exploiting sentient life as commodities. There are plenty of vegan parents lol
Ecclesiastes 4:3 - "But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun."
I decided it was not a good idea to have children when I was 18, I'm now 74 and have not had any children!
You're a hero! ❤️
@@justamoteofdust You're a depressed person who thinks his depressive mindset is universal.
well done
@@lollll9932 seek help
@@lollll9932 lmao why
Alex, if you see this, you are an inspiration to all of us out there. Many of us who studied philosophy have nowhere near the level of understanding, frame of reference or general intellect and comprehension to speak on these subjects with a moderate degree of confidence. You're an undergrad(I believe) pursuing a double major and, are able to challenge a Head of a Philosophy department on his arguments in a meaningful way. Not just some trivial quib about their point or stance. You can genuinely from a philosophical and intellectual perspective make great points and its inspiring to watch. That being said no one is an absolute authority and just because it comes out of your mouth doesnt make it true or correct. I must admit im partial and tend to find your arguments mostly convincing. You are a precocious young man and a joy to learn from.
I am of different dispostion, so I will ask should it be the confidence, intellect and comprehension to make him inspirational how are you to know you are to believe him by his arguments and not by his charisma?
@@voxsvoxs4261 because although he is charismatic, in philosophy we judge peoples arguments on their arguments and not how charming they are. I judge his arguments on their own merit. He is inspirational because he is so young and passionate about philosophy with a great understanding.
Ugh
Well said.
well said.
Dude, you're the best. You really have a genuine approach to learning and considering challenging ideas concerning ethics.
One of the best interviews I've heard in a long time. Your questions were excellent, and really helped to clarify the more subtle points of the argument.
Suggestion for a video: Alex? Why don't you give us a tour of your book shelf?
He's done several book recommendation videos, I'm sure there would be a huge amount of overlap
Yes please
I'm not sure if Alex has the time to do a 19 hour video, but hey, I'm all for it :D I got plenty of coffee and food :D
He did it
Your wish may be granted.
I like your face to face conversations because you get so much from body language. I also think that having travelled out to you vs just sitting at a computer your interlocutor might be more invested. But if I had to pick between your content existing in this format or never having existed I'm glad your content exists.
i see what u did there haha
Clever!!
I got my tubes removed because I’m not sure if I even want children, but if I do, I want adopt. I don’t honestly see any reason to bring another kid into this world, when there are so many that need love.
The world is bs for making adoption expensive, that’s some people prefer biological
@@withinofwhat1083 I agree, but it’s also extremely expensive to have bio babies too
But aren’t you assuming implicitly that you have it within your power as a parent to reduce the suffering of the child you’ve adopted with the love you give that child? If you don’t have it within your power to reduce that child’s suffering then what’s the point in adopting the child, if not for your own selfish interest to have a child. In which case, how’s that different from bringing your own child into the world and then giving the child the love you believe will reduce their suffering overall?
@@pascal8306 why wouldnt they have the power to reduce a childs suffering? If that child doesnt get adopted, itll fare much worse (for the most part). Youre kidding me if you dont see the difference between adopting a child and bringing a new life in.
@@userblame632 no I’m saying if they do have the power to reduce the adopted child’s suffering which I think they do, then why assume you wouldn’t have the power to do the same for a child of your own you brought into the world? Because the argument is that bringing a child into the world condemns them to suffering, and it’s implied aswell that that suffering is unredeemable, which makes it immoral to have children. But it’s clearly not unredeemable suffering if you’re capable of reducing the suffering of an adopted child.
The most thought-provoking conversation I can remember ever witnessing.
Im cool with the remote podcasts. It doesn’t matter to me.
@Abu Amanah Of the 3000 religions available, how many have you looked into? Seems intellectually dishonest for you to just select from the ones in your local environment.
@Abu Amanah I use the word Cosmos here, or simply Being. Some thing has always existed, and we are a part of it. When we die, it takes away our atoms to construct other shapes and organisms. There is no division between everything that we are and everything that IT is. Even now, you are a piece of the Cosmos...
@Abu Amanah I think that morality is objective. Life floods the physical and psychological 'spaces' of existence with variation (genes and memes) and 'discovers' the Truths to be found there.
@Abu Amanah The most real of all things is the structure that the genes and the memes survive. The things that are really True, all the time, are not context dependent.
@Abu Amanah Things are morally right or wrong whether you know them or not. The Truth is there nonetheless. You and I are an imperfect attempt at that truth. But it is there, always. Always true. We are variants of that discovery.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the ethics of pet ownership.
I second this!
We shouldn't own another life, no difference to slavery
@@wifi2166 isn't the difference that in one case there's suffering for your own pleasure and in the other case there's caring for and loving another for pleasure?
@@wifi2166 I got a notification that you respond to my question but unfortunately I can't see it. I'm not ignoring your response deliberately!
@@JamieTwells ye, I did respond but looks like it got deleted? I basically said that just because you love and care for something, it doesn't make it ok.
I’m not having kids, not just because I find them very annoying but also because I can’t stand for someone else to experience mental illness, that’s runs in my genes.
I’m also likely to be a bad parent, through the ways I’ve been brought up.
My kids would have my genes. I wish that I was never born and I don’t want anyone else to go through that torment.
genes don't cause mental illness
@@blakeavila4409 wrong.
@@tonytagleone6557 Just because you have a gene doesn't mean you have to express it.
@@blakeavila4409 doesn’t mean you won’t. Not having children eliminates that possibility.
@@tonytagleone6557 Its not random. A healthy body will express zero of its genetic weaknesses. You don't think health falls out of the sky do you?
Alex is so respectful, I like how he lets his guests complete their responses.
Imo yes i wish i wasnt born but im not suicidal if that makes any sense
dont be silly
Of course it does.
@Mary Whiterabbit If all your other experiences have been bad or neutral, how is it possible for you to think that being born was the best thing that happened to you, or are you being ironic?
NM JC makes plenty sense
@Mary Whiterabbit Then being born was not the only good thing that ever happened to you.
Brilliant, thought provoking episode! Thank you very much. Also thank you very much for fighting just the right amount for your points, Alex. Diligent but not impolite.
What wonderful timing for this, I just finished True Detective Season 1
What's it about? Is it worth watching? Give me examples of shows you like so that I can get an Idea about you taste.
Thanks 😇
@@Amor_fati.Memento_Mori if you enjoy this video, you'll appreciate true detective season 1. Any other show would mislead you by comparison. It is quite philosophical..and nihilistic, but also much more.
@@mindlander
I see. Thanks.
Just watch season 1.
I was born into a family that was miserable, abusive, and constantly anxious. I was not a happy child. In the end, I transformed my experience into something meaningful and fulfilling through years of psychotherapy, leading to me studying psychology and working with abuse survivors. I can totally get the antinatalist side, even though I'm happy to exist after decades of mostly misery and dread. I honestly don't want to have kids, though.
you are very strong!
you are an antinatalist then! no antinatalist thinks people can't have happy lives, even atheists, they just can't assure it for their children
You should make some videos about your experience and how you overcame your childhood and what you learnt through psychotherapy and in psychology that helped you to do so.
@@antib_readerand yet his strength shall die with him. He had better make sure sacrificing everything is worth whatever his purpose is.
@@feartheghuswho cares if it dies? Are you that egotistical and selfish that you need to bring a kid into the world so that you can cope?
Been thinking of this Topic Alex thanks for tackling it.
I think it's great you're still continuing the podcast in a safe way. I hope maybe next time there could be a pic with the interviewees name in the corner; I noticed that it helps me during similar situations on news interviews, especially with people I've only just learned about.
Edit: I'm seeing comments about the guest choosing to not show his face in general; I would support any guest who feels that way, despite my preference.
Wow! Benatar is not an easy person to get a hold of! I would kill to have a full conversation with him, but I'm glad you got him on
It's not that difficult tbh the antinatalist podcast had an interview with him not too long ago.
Kill another human if you must. Just don't kill an animal to eat and admit that around here. You would be canceled quicker than you could say: "thin and pale"
@@kenhiett5266 Gotta love Carnists' efforts to troll. 2/10 (for the effort).
@@michaelmagdy6647 Yea, you could classify this particular comment as a troll, that's fair. However the rating you gave it is obviously skewed heavily by your bias. It's a 6 at the very minimum.
@@kenhiett5266 Not really, you just think so high of yourself.
Thin and pale is just a lame stereotype carnists like yourself like to describe vegans.
You can obviously find thin and pale vegans and carnists alike. Obviously too there are more obese carnists than vegans and more thin vegans than carnists but whether one eats less or more than 2000 calories per day and whether they eat enough iron doesn't have anything to do with their moral position on killing animals and eating their carcasses.
You're misinformed at best and dishonest at worst so 2/10 is pretty generous for your weak troll.
"[Being born is] a matter of growing up and realising you're expelled from your mother's uterus as if shot from a cannon, towards a barn door studded with old nail files and rusty hooks. It's a matter of how you use the intervening time in an intelligent and ironic way." /// Christopher Hitchens
I think of that quote quite often, given in such casual surroundings. He didn't present such sentiments much in his lectures and debates, though. I wonder what he would have made of the antinatalist/anti-existence argument more comprehensively expressed. Nowhere do I think he ever referred to Schopenhauer for example. But Hitch is the person I think I most would want still to be alive, in all the world.
Loved the discussion and all the interesting points brought up. A part 2 would be amazing for this.
“If ye unto your sons would prove,
By act how dearly them ye love,
Then every voice of wisdom joins
To bid ye leave them in your loins.”
- Abu Al-Ala Al-Ma’arri, syrian poet-philosopher from the Islamic golden age, 10th century
(just sharing some ancient and old poetry in the comments)
Lol thank you for sharing this
I like that. AlMa'arri was also one of the first well known vegans and antinatalists.
Omg thanks letting me know that this badass existed, as an Arab ex Muslim vegan anti-natalist, I can finally look up to a philosopher from antiquity that I can identify with that isn’t western
A.S.M Oh, you hit the jackpot. Al-Ma’arri was a brilliant mind, way ahead of his time, and one of the people I look up to the most. I can send you more links with his texts, even in arabic. I can’t understand classical arabic, but it probably sounds much more beautiful in the original tongue. Here are some translations: www.humanistictexts.org/al_ma%27arri.htm
PS: This coming from a vegan AN who is learning arabic
Lea D Thanks for the link! I’m actually reading some of his poems in Arabic and I’m getting goose bumps, ahead of his time is an understatement!!
Its so nice listening to two philosophers clarifying terms and talking within frameworks about a single issue. Much respect to them
I don't agree with antinatalism at all, but I think it's important to have debates around the topic for people to understand each other better.
I agree. Im at the point where im not convinced but i think procreation is something that warrants more concern than many people seem to show it.
I do hope that you cover some more of the antinatalist arguments - consent, risk, etc. - in the future. I would like to hear your overall thoughts and analysis of these arguments.
Agreed, especially consent! Such an important concept, and it can also make the argument about net suffering & pleasure less important.
@@cpunykurde Yup. Nonconsent argument is pretty much a checkmate.
@John Toas any actual arguments? Otherwise I'm not gonna waste any time on you
John Toas No one ever said he was unhappy so stick to the arguments presented, not some ad hominem disguised in a syllogism.
John Toas Oh no, not an ad hominem! What will I ever do?..... An attack on my ego?! Say it isn’t so!
Hats off to you once again, Alex! This is a brilliant episode and I love the depths to which you discuss such contentious and important topics with one of the finest minds embracing antinatalism as an actual branch of philosophy.
I am continually frustrated by the approach taken by analytic philosophy. So much focus on language, though never grounded in a clean understanding of a deep mind-body connection which can offer so much more understanding.
Pain IS NOT “intrinsically bad.” Pain is intrinsically painful. We have to use that tautology to reveal the mental-emotional evaluation inherent in the word “bad.”
Evaluating something as good/bad automatically positions us towards particular action. Generally speaking, most of us want to rid ourselves of “bad” things. The problem with this approach is that we can evaluate something as bad that should NOT be gotten rid of, but rather understood more deeply and therefore related to in a healthier way.
Alex, you are awesome. This interview is great.
These are tough ethical questions, and they really have to be addressed. Thank you. It's one thing to vehemently disagree with Benatar, it's another to completely dismiss his arguments as ludicrous or "obviously wrong" based on reflexive moral intuition
Any actual present moral intuition would never disagree with Benatar. Everyone initially considers themselves moral, self awareness will always suggest your own desires don't get to warp reality. Actual morality is always larger than yourself.
How about the intuition that "killing innocent people is wrong"?
@@akosikuyzak I hope you know antinatalism is not against killing people..only against making additional new ones.
@@pritamlaskar Yes I know but what makes one acceptable and the other not? If you say because justifying killing is ludicrous or obviously immoral, you just beg the question against the anti-humanism guy.
>I hope you know antinatalism is not against killing people
Did you mean to say it _is_ against killing people?
Being an antinatalist (even without knowing that was a whole thing) is the reason that for years now I’ve only ever wanted to adopt
I wonder too what are the effects of our specific political, economic, and environmental circumstances on antinatalism. Right now I have no desire to bring a child into this world. But I could imagine a world where I'd consider it at least
If bring a child into existence is immoral, so is adoption. Buying a second-hand car is driving up demand and market volume for new cars due to the after-market effects. One equivalent argument in the children market is "don't get an abortion, you can always give it up for adoption", but there are a lot of more indirect ways in which the market works.
To make things worse, adoption is _always_ traumatising for children (unlike for cars, which, as far as we know, don't have the ability to suffer). All other things being equal, adopted children are guaranteed to suffer more than non-adopted ones. I'm a sociopath, so I don't care either way, but if I were interested in reducing human suffering, I would certainly not support adoptions in any way or form.
Thomas S. Muhn I disagree. There is VERY low demand of adopted children, which is why orphanages are overrun all over the world. Adoption is one of the greatest ways to help orphans succeed in the world, have a support system in that family for life, and help them to lead a wholesome life into adulthood. If someone adopts an orphan, there is always a chance that the child could suffer in the new family. But I hardly see how they would fare better without a family in an orphanage that will make them homeless and have no support network once they turn 18.
Plus,I really doubt people would ever think to have a kid just so that others could adopt them.
@@ThomasSMuhn When you adopt, you might be able to greatly improve the life of a person who is already exists. Of course, there should not be any financial interest for somebody to produce a child so it can be given away for adoption. But if the natural parents die or if they are not able to take care of the child, then adopting that child is a good thing. Still: The natural parents should not have procreated in the first place.
@@ThomasSMuhn Adoption doesn't cause harm to a child. if the child is already being put up for adoption then they could be an orphan, their parents may be unfit due to being in jail or on drugs, or the parents moght be unable to raise a child. the small harm in knowing you were adopted is greatly outweighed by the empirically better outcomes when children in these situations do get adopted.
I was a very sensitive child…, and came into a dreary pain filled household. . I would never take the chance my child would have to endure a repeat of that in any way. I was not selfish, I was aware of benetars view wo knowing it!! Bless him for bringing the question to the forefront for each of us to make on our own.
That's pessimism..in not having a child you might also be ensuring that someone misses the most love filled fulfilling life ever..af the end of the day we simply don't know...
Dont take the chance they end up in a similar household? They’re your kid. You make the household.
Imagine being so weak you call yourself a sensitive child and you believe you’d make a horrible parent, and that you’d be so bad at parenting, and that anyone related to you would be so bad at living that you think it’s a better not to have a kid.
@@metamaggot I don't believe in anti-natalism but something good not happening is by definition not immoral, it's neutral. if there were no children to be born from now on that still wouldn't be as bad as 1 person dying. ofc adults want to have children as part of their lifes which they wouldn't be able to have in that case, which is bad, but there are also people who are infertile. by your definition everyone would have to have children even if they didn't want to, which is just ridicules honestly. once again I believe that giving birth and affirming life is a good thing but Im simply pointing out where you're mixed up.
@@SpicyBacon And if he dies through no fault of his own, damning his kid to live with an evil uncle or such - then what? You're playing Russian roulette with a child's future.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
😐
I don't know if I can claim to have a sound philosophical basis for my position on this topic, but I can't help but feel very strongly that is wrong to bring children into the world. Purely on an emotional level, I don't think I could conceive a child with a clear conscience, which I suspect is mostly a result of personal experience. I admit that this makes it very hard for me to be convinced by arguments that are based on abstract reasoning or semantics, as I see them. As someone who has struggled with depression and anxiety, I would feel unbelievably guilty and sad if my child felt anything resembling the pain and terror that I have felt in my worst moments. For me, the potential that a person brought into the world might feel those unspeakably terrible feelings, even if it were true that most people wouldn't suffer to that extent, is enough to convince me that children shouldn't be brought into the world. I just can't feel that it is right to just gamble, roll the dice, take that chance, when there is the potential for an outcome involving such acute suffering, however small the odds. Definitely not a position that I'd feel confident defending in a rational way, but it's so difficult for me to feel any other way.
@c B Thanks for your reply! I do wonder how much our ability to rationally evaluate this topic is affected by personal life experiences and genetic disposition. It would be interesting to know what percentage of people who disagree with antinatalism are people like yourself and what percentage of antinatalists are people like myself, if there were a way to measure that. If it is the case that most antinatalists have had a negative experience of life or are more depressive by nature, while most anti-antinatalists have a positive outlook on life and more cheerful dispositions, then surely that would throw into question whether either of their positions are actually founded on a solid epistemology? I can't help but suspect that emotion and intuition play a disproportionately large role when it comes to this topic.
@c B That's an interesting idea. If it's inevitable that humans will continue to be born, then at the very least it would be good for more of them to be genetically predisposed to being happy, so perhaps that would be one positive outcome of the antinatalist position, even from your point of view? That is, if it is the case that antinatalists are more prone to depression and whatnot.
Weak and nihilist point of view.
Life is suffering. Your children will suffer no matter what. Your job as parent is to help them survive the fragility of life on Earth.
c B life is suffering in the sense it’s inevitable. This was said in response to a remark made about how they wouldn’t want there hypothetical children to suffer like they had.
Although you could argue from navigating a tight birth canal, being born, growing teeth, hungry from wanting milk, the falls you have when learning to walk, the awkward stumbling through puberty and lessons you learn in adulthood is a whole lot of suffering with some intense happiness in between. That happens to most and that’s without the unexpected loss of a love one, long term illness or all the bad things that happen throughout our lives.
Baring in mind your coming from a 21st century perspective. The humans before suffered a lot more for a lot less.
@@leonie3317 I'm confused by what you're trying to say. If you acknowledge that life involves suffering, then why would it be unreasonable for me to not want to bring a person into existence to experience that suffering, especially if there is the potential for that suffering to be extremely acute? Certainly I don't see how it is a weak and nihilistic point of view, although you haven't shown why nihilism is inherently bad or wrong anyways. I consider it to be quite an empathetic point of view, actually. And I don't have a job as a parent because I am not a parent and do not intend to be a parent? I will say life would be more pleasant if people like yourself had a bit more empathy and tact in online discussions :)
Dude, I need to thank you. I am not exactly an atheist (complicated), but your videos have really helped me really consider my views sensibly as I was raised pretty much to be a radical Christian, and have just in general helped me to be a better person. I forgot about this channel, but I remember watching your videos a few years ago. I don't agree with everything you've ever said, but nobody will, will they. Thanks again.
What do you mean by not exactly an atheist?
I don't believe in nothing, but I dont believe in God like Christianity or Islam. And by nobody will they I mean no two people will agree over literally everything
@@ShayAviv1000 by radical Christian I mean like taking the bible really seriously and making everything an issue to do with God and taking the Christian stance on literal everything
@@douglasgibb6943 I suppose, I don't have to believe in nothing at all to be atheist
@Lucas Haefner I'm not 40 lol. Anyway though, you make a very good point. I won't edit my message though, so people can see why you're saying this.
If i can go back in time and make my self not be born, i would do it in a heart beat.
@John Toas
I'm not sad, i just don't want to be here.
@John Toas
4 NOBILE TRUTHS.
ua-cam.com/video/Vjm2zdQ5ll0/v-deo.html
@John Toas
Know life know pain.
No life no pain.
howtostopthecycleofpain.blogspot.sg/2009/05/why-do-you-feel-pain.html?m=1
Hi are you ok?
I’m in the same shoes as you. I’m really bored of life and haven’t found the meaning of it. 🙁
@@God.sDaughter Great authors don't go looking for books in the woods, they write them. There won't be a meaning you find one day between your couch cushions or somewhere out there, you either have to create it yourself, or laugh in the face of just how meaningless life is.
Love Alex's way of dealing with new (for the video of course not him) arguments. He always works from the ground up. Not having accepted any of the premises at the start of the video, he tries to reason his way to them. Excellent!
This was such an insightful discussion!
The followup is crucial to hear.
Thank you !
Antinatalism has existed since antiquity (the Gnostics and Cathars were antinatalists for instance) and came to its own in the XIX century with the great Arthur Schopenhauer.
Al maari as well. Its totally understandeable from any religious perspective especially christianity
@@eg4848 Al Maari too? Interesting.
@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27arri#Antinatalism
@@lucioh1575 Thanks.
@@cainandabel7059 There were many viewpoints held by different gnostic sects but it appears that at least some of them were against procreation because it was the cause that some of the divine element became encapsulated in the material (evil) element. By abstaining from procreation, these Gnostics thought that they were opposing the evil "demiurge" who created matter. www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Projects/Reln91/Gender/Gnosticism.htm
There also were some who expressed antinatalist opinions within Judaism, such as the author of the "Book of Ecclesiastes"; as well as in the context of early Christianity (such as Augustine).
Just what I need, currently dying of boredom in quarantine.
same
Do something then. People are working their ass off to sustain society. Help would be appreciated instead of complaining online
@D-O dont make it weird man
@D-O just let people be bored. stop looking into it
John Cena
Do I even need to touch on how ignorant and laughable that statement is?😂
0:34: 🎙 In this episode, Professor David Benatar discusses antinatalism and its connections to veganism.
0:34: Professor David Benatar is a proponent of antinatalism, the view that it is immoral to have children.
0:55: His views have sparked controversy but also gained support.
1:09: Antinatalism is comprehensively explained in his book 'Better Never to Have Been'.
1:23: The podcast episode is filmed remotely due to the current pandemic.
1:39: Listeners can find the podcast on various streaming platforms.
2:04: The host considers doing more remotely filmed podcast episodes.
3:10: Some connections between antinatalism and veganism are discussed, such as the argument of benefiting animals by bringing them into existence.
4:03: There are additional assumptions that need to be made to connect the two views.
4:49: Antinatalism and veganism have numerous connections and interesting arguments.
6:07: 🗣 The video discusses the meta ethical foundation of antinatalism and the argument for why it is immoral to have children or bring new sentient creatures into existence.
6:07: The speaker argues that antinatalism does not presuppose a utilitarian approach or any specific ethical position.
7:26: The speaker believes that suffering is intrinsically bad, but it can also have instrumental value.
9:00: The speaker clarifies that when they say suffering is bad, they mean it is bad for the person involved.
10:10: The speaker argues that it is immoral to have children or bring new sentient beings into existence based on the consideration of suffering and the interests of the potential person.
10:52: 🤔 The video discusses the argument for antinatalism based on the axiological asymmetry and empirical asymmetries between pain and pleasure.
10:52: The argument for antinatalism is based on the belief that it is never in someone's interest to be brought into existence.
11:23: The axiological asymmetry states that the presence of pain is bad and the presence of pleasure is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad unless someone is deprived.
13:35: Empirical asymmetries explain why there is a significant amount of suffering in lives and contribute to the argument against bringing someone into existence.
15:11: Intuitions play a role in evaluating ethical views, but they should be subject to critical scrutiny.
16:06: 🤔 The video discusses the importance of considering intuitions in philosophical arguments and explores the concept of non-existence in relation to pleasure and suffering.
16:06: Intuitions should not be dismissed outright but subject to critical scrutiny.
16:42: Anti-natalists may have a strong intuition in favor of having children despite philosophical justifications.
17:22: The speaker emphasizes the need for reflective equilibrium in evaluating intuitions.
18:00: The speaker argues that non-existent individuals are neither deprived nor benefited by pleasure or suffering.
19:33: The speaker suggests adapting ordinary concepts to account for the unusual case of non-existence.
20:33: The speaker disagrees with treating the unusual case as the usual case.
20:48: The speaker presents an asymmetry between pleasure and suffering in relation to non-existence.
21:14: The speaker acknowledges the alternative route of treating non-existence differently but highlights its implications.
21:25: 🤔 The video discusses the concept of the asymmetry argument in antinatalism and explores objections to it.
21:25: The asymmetry argument in antinatalism suggests that it is morally wrong to bring a child into existence who would suffer greatly.
22:23: Objections to the asymmetry argument question why avoiding pain by not bringing a person into existence is considered bad.
23:11: The speaker argues that the asymmetry has explanatory value and solves certain problems in population ethics.
24:31: An objection to the asymmetry is that if life is really bad, there may be no obligation to bring new beings into existence.
25:41: The speaker acknowledges that the asymmetry may not be universally accepted and suggests evaluating it as a separate concept from antinatalism.
27:22: 🤔 The discussion explores the argument of antinatalism and its relationship to the asymmetry of existence.
27:22: The non-existent being is in a state of neutrality.
27:57: The asymmetry of existence compares scenarios of existence and non-existence.
28:44: The argument suggests that existing is worse than non-existing due to excess suffering.
29:06: The absence of suffering is seen as morally neutral rather than a positive good.
29:39: The comparison is made in terms of the interests of the being that exists.
30:49: Framing the absence of pain as a positive good is not problematic in this unusual case.
31:09: The argument can lead to antinatalism but is not directly against the asymmetry.
31:29: The discussion considers a hypothetical scenario with a majority of pleasure.
31:51: 💡 The discussion explores the asymmetry between pleasure and pain in relation to the existence and non-existence of individuals, and the implications for antinatalism.
31:51: The asymmetry between pleasure and pain is a key factor in determining whether existence is preferable to non-existence.
32:51: The argument for antinatalism does not necessarily require the asymmetry between pleasure and pain.
34:48: Existence is considered to have a higher bar to meet for its worthiness compared to non-existence.
35:40: Interests in continuing to exist may have moral worth, but can be outweighed by other interests.
36:01: The question of interests is complex, especially in relation to abortion and the taking of lives.
37:03: 🤔 The discussion revolves around the concept of harm and interests in relation to abortion and other scenarios.
37:03: The question of whether a being that doesn't exist has interests of moral relevance is raised.
37:33: The speaker argues that the person on the train being unaware of a terminally ill person becoming healthy doesn't necessarily benefit them.
38:34: A case is presented where the destruction of someone's work after their death raises the question of whether their interests have been set back.
39:23: The concept of harm is discussed, with the understanding that suffering is a measure of harm.
40:16: The speaker argues that if their future self doesn't exist, preventing their suffering or pleasure is not a bad thing.
40:59: The argument is made that if someone is painlessly killed without their knowledge, it could be considered a good thing.
41:46: The complexity of decriminalizing painless murder is acknowledged, considering the potential secondary effects and panic it may cause.
42:04: The idea of not harming someone by killing them is challenged, considering the moral implications and potential increase in suffering.
42:37: 💀 The video discusses the debate on whether death is bad for the person who dies, with the speaker arguing that death is not inherently bad for the individual.
42:37: The speaker argues that if a person is killed without their knowledge and without experiencing pain, it makes no sense to say that death is bad for them.
42:48: The speaker acknowledges that it may be bad for other people involved in the act of killing, but not for the person who dies.
43:22: The argument presented is based on the Epicurean view, which suggests that death is not inherently bad because it does not cause harm or suffering to the person who dies.
44:22: The speaker acknowledges that there is no definitive knockdown response to disprove the Epicurean view, but argues that a balance of different considerations supports the view that death is bad for the individual.
46:31: The speaker mentions that antinatalism, the belief that it is morally wrong to bring new people into existence, can also be applied to the idea that it is not bad for a person to die.
47:35: 🤔 The discussion revolves around the Epicurean view of death and antinatalism, exploring the idea of whether death is good or bad and the potential suffering prevented by not having children.
47:35: The Epicurean view of death is that it is somewhat neutral, as it has no effect on the person who dies.
48:42: The speaker questions the asymmetry argument in antinatalism, suggesting that if one cannot say it is bad to not experience pleasure, then one cannot say it is good to not suffer.
49:20: The discussion touches on the idea of one's future self being different from the non-existent person becoming an existing person.
50:44: The speaker mentions that there are good and bad ways of bringing about human extinction, and expresses opposition to a painful method that would cause suffering for existing people.
51:27: The speaker raises a hypothetical scenario of a government having the power to wipe out all sentient life on Earth, but it would be a painful process. They question whether the suffering prevented by not having future generations would outweigh the suffering caused by the extinction process.
52:54: ❓ The philosopher discusses the moral implications of causing the extinction of all life on Earth.
52:54: Different moral theories may yield different answers regarding the permissibility of causing phased extinction.
54:00: The practical question of knowing the conditions and consequences of causing extinction looms large.
54:39: Playing God and making decisions for all of humanity is viewed as dangerous.
55:09: Limited responsibilities and preventing suffering within reasonable capabilities is emphasized.
55:32: Practicalities and potential negative effects on individuals involved should be considered in moral judgments.
56:32: Granting hypothetical knowledge, the moral obligation of painful extermination depends on one's moral theory.
57:05: Utilitarians may be hesitant to endorse painful extermination due to potential misuse and harm.
57:34: The scale of the case is important in considering the moral implications.
57:34: Deontologists may acknowledge the misery caused by not pressing the button, but still argue against doing so based on rights.
57:47: 💭 The video discusses the ethical implications of bringing someone into existence and the decision-making authority of competent beings.
57:47: A deontologist may argue that it is not within their rights to kill a person suffering from a terminal disease, even if they believe it would relieve them of suffering.
58:17: The scenario of one person suffering from a terminal disease is different from the scenario of bringing billions of people into existence, as the former involves a competent being while the latter involves a non-existing being.
59:47: While one may believe a competent being is wrong in their decision, interfering with their choices is not justified.
1:00:19: Preventing the existence of a person would prevent all the potential harm and suffering they may experience, making it a clear choice.
1:00:35: The hypothetical scenario of time travel and erasing one's existence is confounding and unreliable in terms of obtaining a reliable judgment.
1:01:35: People's counterfactual judgments about their own existence are often unreliable.
1:02:08: Comparing the unreliable judgment in the time travel scenario to the judgment of a dying person who believes their future will be bad.
1:02:40: 🤔 The conversation explores the ethical implications of time travel and the decision to terminate someone's life.
1:02:40: The decision-making process for a past self is questioned.
1:02:40: The conversation touches on the concept of existing and non-existing individuals.
1:02:49: The conversation raises hypothetical scenarios that require moral consideration.
1:03:01: The decision to terminate someone's life should be deferred to the competent individual themselves.
1:03:16: The hypothetical scenario of time travel and decision-making is not a real decision.
1:03:45: The discussion leaves many issues unresolved and open for further consideration.
1:03:59: The audience is encouraged to think about these ethical questions.
1:04:12: The conversation acknowledges the lack of a firm answer to the ethical questions.
1:04:27: The video is supported by Patreon and encourages viewers to engage in further discussions.
Recap by Tammy AI
I really like how you don`t take practical application arguments at face value and tend to rely on propositions that could actually be show to have some truth value in a propositional logic sort of sense. The fact that you challenge your interviewee`s points in this manner and don`t accept intuition based arguments when they don`t address the inconsistencies is refreshing. This makes these interviews much more interesting to listen to than say having the guest summarize their view in the way that they feel comfortable.
I don't understand it completely in English, but I am trying, because it's so interesting! Thanks 😊
I like the discussions where one can just listen - no viewing required, they rest your eyes.
This deserves a second conversation after all these years
My first introduction to this as an actual, formalized concept, and I dig it immensely.
Could never really resolve, internally, the typical justifications child-bearers would present, such as religious, social, traditional, species, romantic, to name a few...yet will hold off labeling myself until I conduct more research.
The “Question Everything” philosophy rings many bells for me.
This will be an interesting conversation to listen to. Keep it up my dude
My girlfriend, soon to be fiance then wife, can't have any kids and that's one of the reasons I want to marry her. I see kids as a burden and have no desire to have them and I'm also very very pessimistic when it comes to the quality of life for future generations.
Just because she can't give birth to children doesn't mean she doesn't want children, it's still going to be worth talking about so you are on the same page
@@henryginn7490 I neglected to mention that we did talk about and she does have kids already that are in college at this point. She also stated that she didn't want kids either so we've definitely talked about it as kids is something I definitely do not want at all.
IMHO the future generations will have much better life than current and past generations. Just compare the life of people in mediveal age with people today especially in the developped world.
All the good steps we have made as a society can be destroyed in one day by a man with loose lips and a platform. Look at how Andrew Tate effected young men in a few weeks.
Love you CosmicSkeptic! Keep doing your thing it makes for phenomenal philosophical content.
I'm very glad I found your channel, Alex. Your rationality is inspiring! Thank you!
Excited to see a new episode! I hope you’re enjoying your time in quarantine, Alex.
Great choice of guest. Delighted to hear these ideas discussed on your platform. Bravo sir skeptic 👏
I would say, just based on a lifetime of experience, that most pain in life is caused by others forcing us to live their preconceived way. If we were truly free, I feel we would all have a MORE happy life than we currently do. Just my opinion of course.
I'm from South Africa and have never heard of David well to be fair I haven't really looked into the morality of having children. I'm glad this came up because now I have an interest and need to start digging 😋
Yoh yoh😆😂 Imagine explaining this to traditional parents and grandparents🤣.
Hey,another fellow South African!
@@simphiwe4930 yha that wouldn't be easy hey😬😬😬.
I think what's currently happening in South Africa is enough to make most people anti-natalist.
@@sphumelelesijadu as only as they're of the right... race 😏
The subscriber count of this channel is rising in thousands each day!
If the presence of suffering is bad for an existing person, and the absence of suffering in a non-existent person is good because neutral is better than bad, then absence of pleasure cannot be "not bad", it should be, by that same reference, considered bad because in that case it would be neutral versus good ( presence of pleausure being good ), and neutral is worse than good, just like it is better than bad
IMO not being born is neutral . being born is either good or bad .
The reason you should not give birth is because you are making a gamble. The gamble is unnecessary because unborn babies don't desire existence
@@testacals Yeah that's how I see it too
Yes! Please do more of these podcasts. This was an excelent conversation, thank you
I'm honestly in the opposite side of the spectrum to me life is so good and so worth living that I see being alive as a possitive good.
@Peace Prevails Atheists should not ignore the following truths, regarding the source of evil, respectively why here is not Heaven:
God/Jesus is not a dictator, but the opposite. That is why this reality (this Universe) has been created intentionally so that freedom to be offered 100%.
Most unbelievers of the truth do not know the *"Parable of the weeds".* The fallen angels have created all the evil living things such as: parasites, viruses, bad bacteria ..., besides all insects and animals that kill other insects or animals, also the bad instincts in humans (the reptilian brain), by altering our DNA (since the "apple" event mentioned in the Bible). *Initially all insects, animals etc. were feeding only with plants (plants products, such as fruits, nectar, seeds etc.).*
Humans had to continue living after betraying the Creator, by listening to His enemy, Satan, who is actually the god of this world, in a Creation corrupted by the fallen angels, after the Creator "has abandoned" this planet to let us see how evil, humans without God/Jesus, can be. We see this everyday and suffer the bad consequences of the stupid=evil people's deeds, tools of Satan. The fallen angels, being sadistic, have altered the DNA of most living things (including us) to do as default both: reproduce uncontrollably (as much as they can) and fight (kill) each other. Unfortunately, they love to see living things suffering, especially human beings suffering.
The Bible mentions clearly that Satan is the god of this world (for example in Corinthians). Therefore, all havoc, all stupidity=evilness, respectively all the useless suffering etc. and immorality/promiscuity are sustained by the fallen angels, ruled by Satan. We still can live and even be happy sometimes, in this short earthly life, because of God's mercy and love for us, which keeps some limitations for the fallen angels, otherwise Apocalypse will happen.
*The fallen angels want to destroy us since our conception (actually, all the time in any way possible). That is why they make us suffer, as much as possible, by using our stupidity and the stupidity of the other people around us.*
Satan, the one who deceives the whole world (Rev. 12:9), wants to corrupt, pervert, and twist everything what God has made.
Anyone should know already the main commandment from Jesus Christ (the human form of Divinity), *besides to love / respect our Heavenly Father, to love / respect (care for) the other humans as we love / respect (care for) ourselves, besides the 10 commandments. Also the commandment from God to not use freedom wrongly (for evil), **_"For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God."_** 1* Peter 2,15 *In addition, God (the Creator) is perfect. **_"Be perfect therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect"_* Matthew 5, 48
*All the parts that contradict the above truths are alterations done by the tools of Satan, over the last about 2000 years, to manipulate humans.*
Satan, who is the god of this world (as mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4, 4), has deceived too many people, unfortunately.
*Most unbelievers fight against the truth because they want to remain able to continue with their bad addictions.*
Demons are glad whenever we are stupid enough to sin, to produce useless suffering (any damage) to others and to ourselves, to lose our holiness, to not be forgiven/saved anymore, in this way they gaining our soul in hell.
Not all humans who ever lived on Earth had knowledge about the truth from the Bible.
*Our deeds matter* (are the most important for saving our immortal soul) not the labels assigned to us, such as: Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu... *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
_"O foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is worthless?"_ James 2, 20
_"In the same way, faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is dead."_ James 2, 17
_"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."_ James 2, 24
*_"For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God."_* 1 Peter 2,15
In addition, Jesus Christ has warned us: _"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; _*_depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"_* Matthew 7, 21-23
Watch entirely and carefully the following two testimonies (those two men tell the truth):
"NDE- ATHEIST PROFESSOR (Berkeley Grad) dies, sees HELL! Best testimony EVER! Howard Storm Interview".
"Man Sees Unthinkable Horrors in Hell - Christians Being Tortured! (Mario Martinez)".
Therefore, the believing of the truth revealed by God/Jesus will help/convince/determine... you to always strive to do only good for the rest of your earthly life, to be much easier for you at the Judgment, to go into Heaven before many others, to never taste hell, to be more loved by Divinity, but *ALL humans will be judged for their deeds* (watch entirely those two videos mentioned above).
Someone keeps deleting my explanatory message about the deceiving done by Satan. I will post only the beginning of it, maybe it will not be removed again.
_"Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe."_ 2 Corinthians 4, 4
_Satan, the one who deceives the whole world (Rev. 12:9), wants to corrupt, pervert, and twist everything what God has made._
I will try to post the next parts of it in smaller messages to not be deleted again by that "someone".
However, Satan has been already stopped, but we live in our time and that is why mankind has to live until we arrive to that moment of Apocalypse (when Satan and all the fallen angels are defeated, in our perception/time). That is why the Bible has exact prophecies, like the followings listed below:
@Peace Prevails This is the third smaller message / part from the one which has been deleted (hopefully these smaller ones will not be deleted):
- The future will be like in the days of Sodom. Luke 17, 28-30 This is exactly what we see happening today with gay marriage laws and strong public support for the homosexual lifestyle.
- People will deny that GOD created the universe. 2 Peter 3:3-9 This is exactly what we see happening. Atheists are now claiming that the universe created itself out of nothing.
@Peace Prevails Next smaller part:
- The message of the Gospel will reach all the nations. Matthew 24,14 Remember that Christianity started out with only a few dozen followers. The Bible prophesying that its message will reach the world is proof of its divine inspiration.
- TRUE Christians will be hated and killed just because of their faith. Matthew 24, 9
- The future will become frightening. Luke 21, 26 (just few examples: the global warming terrific effects, the third world war final preparations, Corona virus etc.)
“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.”
- Albert Camus
The problem with this anti-natalism argument is that it begs the question, claiming that a life with any amount of pain isn’t worth living, without ever substantiating how it can prove that claim to be objectively true. It’s somewhat intuitive that no amount of pleasure can “justify” any amount of pain. What’s not intuitive is if there is or isn’t a sort of “purpose” that could justify pain. This is the questions Camus is proposing, “Does life have an intrinsic value that justifies the pain of living?”
This anti-natalism argument assumes the answer to that question is “No.” without ever offering any proof of that being the case.
Daniel JP It utilizes the pin-prick analogy, unnecessary harm done to an unconsenting individual, and the pain does not serve any real purpose - it is an unnecessary need that did not need to exist.
Bfmvgirl2000 That would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say if life itself had no intrinsic value. But that has yet to be proven one way or the other. This is precisely the point I’m making in my comment.
Eagle Boy I think that’s a false analogy it. It assumes that there could be no possible purpose for the pinprick. The question we’re asking is, “Is there a purpose to life (that is not pleasure) which could justify life’s suffering.”
Bfmvgirl2000 but they do have a choice, sort of; suicide.
Static Charge Red Field I appreciate your thoughtful response, it’s very well articulated. I’m afraid that it misses the point of what I was trying to shed light on. Namely, that no one has offered up any proof that life has no purpose which might account for the suffering of life. There might very well not be a purpose. But unless you prove that there’s not it’s not fair to completely discount that as a possibility or at the very least, if you’re going to propose an idea like anti-natalism (which by the way I am not particularly against) you should preface it by saying, “By the way, this is assuming that life has no intrinsic purpose or value.”
If the argument was prefaced by a clause like that then any reasonable person could agree, “Yes. IF that were true then anti-natalism would be a responsible conclusion.
As a quick end note: DNA (nor any Science for that matter) can not explain consciousness, the state of living, or why there is something rather than nothing. These are the core mysteries that lead one to have a reasonable suspicion that perhaps “life” is more than just a balance of pain and pleasure.
I find it interesting that Prof. Benatar at times appears to suggest you must either be anti-natalist or Ultra-Pro-Natalist (you must have all the children you could have). This comes from the times he challenges Alex with questions like: "Why are you not having kids right now?". Just because someone is not against having children, it does not logically follow that they must believe everyone should constantly be having children.
I've also come to the conclusion that Prof. Benatar has no views other than the core truth of anti-natalism... because he answers every question with: "Depends on what view point you hold." Even when Alex asks him directly what his view point is, he sidesteps the question. Seems rather cowardly, at least give us a: "My instincts would be X, but I haven't fully worked it out." rather than nothing...
If giving birth to children is intrinsically good and you consider yourself a good person, then why wouldn't you bring the highest amount of children into this world as possible? It begs the question; Do you bring life into this world out of the goodness of your heart or is it an expression of egotistical desires just to have a child? I'd argue it's the latter. That having a baby is essentially not about bringing a new person into life but the personal enjoyment you get from having that baby born.
@@lameduck3105 do you apply this same logic to all good things? It is good to give to those poorer then you (and there will almost always be someone poorer than you). Does that mean you are giving away everything all of the time to the maximum amount possible? Of course not. Because failing to do a good thing is not the same as doing a bad thing. Just because I think doing something is good to do, does not commit me to do it constantly as much as possible.
@@LoopFlare No I don't give away all my belongings to those less fortunate even though that woulld be seen as a good thing.
Which just proves my point that we don't just procreate because it is intrisically good but because it fulfills some of our desires. That is, we ultimately create babies for our own personal pleasure and not because we want to see an independent human being come into existence. Giving birth is at it's core a selfish decision to enrich your life with someone else's being and not a matter of simply bringing someone into existence out of the goodness of your heart.
Therefore, if giving birth is seen as a good thing and not an selfish act, you'd be motivated to bring as many children into the world as possible. If giving money to the poor wasn't about making you feel good about yourself I don't think anyone would give them money, food or shelter. In essence I believe we are all "narcissists" in that sense that we only do things to feel good about ourselves.
Right? Because having children involves body changes, it doesn't make sense for even a natalist to not want them.
Great discussion!
I live 5 km from the University of Cape Town. I‘ve unfortunately never gotten to meet Benatar...
Although i always agreed with this thought having it talked about throughly was rough to hear. Definitely gave me a mid life crisis kinda of vibe and honestly i needed that to truly look at what i am doing with it. Weirdly enough I appreciate this video
I feel like Alex was asking all the right questions, and instead of answering them David just resorted to ''well, through my own research I've arrived at a different conclusion'' instead of revealing what arguments made him arrive at said conclusion, or diverted by saying that '' there are too many issues brought up at once. '' That became apparent to me when they were discussing the Epicurean argument which, if correct, essentially undermines the assymetry argument. Instead of explaining why he doesn't agree with the argument, David just stated what I roughly quoted above, and kind of started going in circles without actually answering Alex's questions.
He did say there is no knockdown argument against epicureanism. Precisely because there isn't.
Quarantine season - sound quality is lower, but has historical value.
ALEX YOU ARE THE BEST! THANK YOU FOR THIS AND PLEASE TRY TO GET HIM ON AGAIN FOR A PART 2!
JUST READ THAT THERES A PART 2. PART 3 NEXT IF YOU CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN!
EDIT: After listening further, I realize that this is the argument which Alex toys with for the next 12 minutes. I'm amazed by the way that Benatar dances around this point, despite Alex's highly articulate statements and restatements of the objection.
My response to the scenario that David Benatar presents around 21:50 is that yes, it's immoral to reproduce if you have good reason to believe that their life will be utterly miserable. However, it's also immoral to avoid reproduction if you have good reason to believe that their life will be good. This is why I find his axiological asymmetry argument unconvincing.
It's not immoral to avoid reproduction if you have good reason to believe they'll have a good life. "Good reason" isn't sound logic, and "good reason" isn't certainty - if you don't have an impossible level of certainty, you risk bringing a child into the world who has a risk of suffering; you're playing Russian roulette. The only way to win is to not play.
@@acex222what an coward attitude. Dont Play cause you might Lose. Why do you live on? You might will suffer tomorow. Isnt it better not to risk it?
@@frankweiss335 you always, definitively lose
@@acex222 what is your Definition of loosing?
@@acex222Determining, with a high amount of logic and certainty, that the child will be happy, even though it’s not completely certain or even if the likelihood of the child being unhappy is there to a smaller degree, is good enough (given more specific likelihoods of the amount of happiness and unhappiness that is at stake as well). The upsides are greater than the downsides, so it’s worth it.
It takes pure logic and compassion to have this philosophical position of life.
Uh, no - it is a very fallacious and ignorant position.
You know, if you wanted somebody to pat your back, just say so. You don't need to do it yourself.
i have feeling you have to be really rigorous as antinatalist in your poursuit of compassion if not you are huge hipocrat and i think most antinatalist are hipocrats in that regards
no.
17:51 Alex you presented your argument clearly and concisely six or seven times over the course of the next SIXTEEN minutes that the lack of suffering of a person who doesn't exist is neutral; not a good thing. The professor refused to answer or even acknowledge your question time and again. Even at 30:40 where he finally says "No", his explanation doesn't address the question you're asking. Well done for persevering though.jj
It's a matter of perspective. The first time I read of the asymmetry, I couldn't wrap my head around it for a very long time. Alex's position considers individual states while Benatar's position considers two states simultaneously.
@@ChowMeinChowdown Did he answer the question? If so when, and could you paraphrase his position please?
@@jamesrockybullin5250 not sure if he addressed it in this video specifically but he voiced the reasons why he chose not to portray it as neutral. It's a long video however so I'm just gonna say go watch the first few minutes of the addendum video. I think he dives right into why there iirc
@@ChowMeinChowdown I did, and I just relistened to it. He agrees with Alex that the absence of pain and the absence of pleasure in a non-existent person is neutral. He then says that the absence of pain (in a non-existant person) is good in a comparative sense. He says the absence of pain in a non-existing person is better than the presence of pain in an existing person. This is trivially true. But it does not prove that the absence of pain is good. It only says (tautologically) that it is better than the presence of pain, which could be less bad but still bad, neutral, or good.
You're not going to convince me that pushing the fat man on the tracks is a good outcome. It's still a tragedy, it's just better than five people dying.
If we can't establish that the absence of pleasure and pain is neutral, what the hell would neutral be?
That was exactly my problem with Benatar. His method of 'answering' Alex's questions was to be evasive. He kept dodging Alex's argument by stating it would be best to assume a special case which pretty much ended up being a cop out. He never supported why a special case was needed and an argument from the viewpoint of Occam's razor would state that if Alex could arrive to the antinatalist conclusion in far less steps and without creating a 'special situation' from which to arrive to his conclusion then it is better to argue from Alex's point of view. That is unless Benatar could demonstrate why his scenario had more ontological value. And as many times as Alex provided him to do so Benatar never stepped up to the plate to show why the antinatalist argument needed a 'special case' to justify his position. Rather he waffled on needlessly. I admire Alex for putting up with him. It was so painful watching to the end of this video after I realized how pedantic and how lacking in intellectual stimulation Benatar's argument was going to be. At least Alex kept it interesting with his hypotheticals.
im so glad i watched part of this video, i got exactly the understanding i was seeking for
This may be way too off-brand for this channel, but the manga for Attack on Titan is discussing a lot of these very same ideas in a very interesting way. It would be very interesting to hear Alex give a philosophical/moral analysis of that story.
Oooh imagine Alex talking about SnK 🤓
True Men of Culture.
David Benatar is Zeke Yeagaaar
But Zeke wants to do that just to eldians and without their consent. That is where it differs.
@@fragrantbloom True. It also differs in that he only believes a specific minority of individuals should not reproduce. But, I think the story still grapples a bit with the core question of anti-natalism insofar as it touches on the idea that existence or being born exposes one to a great deal of pain, suffering and hardship that could be avoided otherwise.
I waited for new episode, and this looks like its gonna be great
Amazing! I really like what you said about your future self being just like a potential child. I agree that death cant be a harm on its own. If you tell someone youre about to kill them painlessly and they start panicking. Their panic is the real harm youre causing.
They could be fearing their whole life coming to an end...
@@aidangerson287 that makes sense.
How do you know that people panic - my gran didn't.
@@ChickpeatheTortie most people are surprised by their fear of death when the time comes. But youre right, theres also lots of people who dont care about death, which is good because theyre probably living life well if theyre actually still alive
@A.J. no, not sure why I said that
33:33 Alex made an insightful point that emphasizes the significance of asymmetry in reaching an anti-natalist conclusion. If asymmetry is necessary, one would conclude that it is always wrong to bring a new life into the world. However, if there is no asymmetry in non-existence, then in a situation where there is a net pleasure to be experienced, it may be morally wrong not to bring life into existence.
The absence of pleasure is "not bad" because there's no deprivation for a non-existent being. The axiological asymmetry is unassailable.
My primary objection with Professor Benatars argument is the assumption that life has any purpose other than... to exist.
@Survivalist395 Nor did I say, he said anything about purpose. I do accept however, my word choice failed to adequately articulate my position.
As I understand it, Professor Benstars' argument is based on non existence in order to avoid suffering. In my opinion, if existence is not just the primary but (only) objective, all considerations after the subject is said to exist, may be disregarded. Especially subjective considerations such as suffering or the lack there of.
Existence is part of the universal equation and well beyond the ethical regard or reproach of those that equate to nothing more than its variables.
But he never said this. He acknowledges that life is meaningless. What he is discussing is the value of existence for the individual brought into existence.
I think it's strange to come to the conclusion that you know people have more suffering in their life than happiness, even though they might say otherwise and might say that they are glad that they lived their life. It reminds me of Jordan Peterson when he says "Life is about suffering", and I think it would be just as correct to say that "Life is about happiness". In the end it only says something about the person who makes the statement and how they experience life themselves.
True. Its simply immoral to force existence on another. No matter the outcome (which is not well proven to be good.)
@@mindlander But we wouldn't exist if everyone thought that way. No one would. It's just impossible for people to have a say in the matter for whether their existence gets to begin or not.
So why do you think it's immoral? Do you think it's because it's safe to assume that the average life has more suffering than pleasure/happiness or well-being?
@@Kanzu999 if you care at all about this, you should think about it just a little bit. You are correct to say no one would exist.
@@mindlander In your first reply you mentioned that it's immoral no matter the outcome. If we imagine a case where we are well informed, and we can expect a future child to lead a good life if they are brought to this world, and they are brought to the world and leads a good life, where is the immorality? Can you elaborate on that?
@@Kanzu999 first, you can't know that. Second, a good life does not necessarily mean a happy life. Rich people are miserable and commit suicide all the time.
It's a wonderful work you're doing Alex. Bringing Benatar is definitely a high on this show. I've listened to his last discuss with Jordan Peterson but that's about 3 years ago, so it's wonderful to hear him again on one of my favorite podcasts. He's sort of a hero to me.
The antinatalist podcast made a video with him recently
@John Toas So what's your justification for imposing suffering and death on all future generations, John?
The basic is to understand suffering. Is suffering actually an inherent aspect of life? That is not an idealistic question, but one which comes from actuality itself. Suffering has few causes, from ignorance, to comparison, to total self indulgence.
Ignorance is my preferred word, as it sums up every aspect of suffering. From wandering around in a daze and stubbing one's toe, to endlessly reacting emotionally to triviality of all sorts due to a desire for control, to grief to heartbreak, etc. If we look at our lives, we see we are indeed the origin of our own suffering.
That is not denying aspects of purely physical pain, as in toothache, which is usually a result of ignorance again, neglecting to feed the body the correct nutrients, not cleaning the teeth, etc. Sure, we can break a bone, and that may or may not hurt, but is that really a cause of suffering? It's the same with so many so-called diseases or illnesses, which are a direct result of accumulated years of neglect due to ignorance; dementia, heart disease, diabetes, MS, ME, parkinson's, etc... and yes, that may indeed be the result of parental/ancestral ignorance too.
There really is no cause of suffering unless we make our own suffering. I may be immobile for whatever reason, that does not mean I have to suffer. I may have no money, that does not mean I have to suffer. I may not have a Rolls Royce and drive an old Fiat 500, that does not mean I have to suffer. Someone close has just died, that does not mean I have to suffer. I may be imprisoned, but that does not mean I have to suffer.
As for the child issue. I would consider it cruel to have a child if I considered life to be purely physical, and for us to be mere machines as some believe. All suffering is optional and entirely needless.
Physically I'm here but mentally I don't care about life in general.
I save most of Alex videos for future references when discussing atheism with Christians and Muslims, the proselytizing religions. There is a cornucopia of misinformation about atheism out there and Alex is particularly well informed which informs me with very useful information I use to debunk arguments about what atheism is defined by the religious. Good job bud, keep it up because we need desperately a voice of reason like yours
It's honestly quite frightening how quickly people dismiss what David says and how adamantly they'll defend having children as if it's actually immoral not to. Very strange.
Brainwashed and irrational people
Perhaps it's because David's arguments are weak and when put under scrutiny he just deflects every time or just straight up says "nah, I feel like what I think is true" without elaborating. It's wild how utilitarian his views are while claiming they aren't.
I disagree with some points but im agnostic on his end point. There are fairly good pushbacks (Alex levels many) but most responses against benatar seem to be childish and are made by people that seem to have no understanding of his points.
How on earth is it strange behavior? Most biological organisms including humans are hardwired to want to reproduce. Definitionally, it’s a quite normal behavior and or line of thought
It's because biologically we all know that discouraging child baring is disadvantageous to the continuation of the species so claiming it to be immoral is essentially an attack on our very own existence it's no simple philosophical discussion about bread and butter we are talking about life itself here.
Came back to your channel after a long time through this topic.Ah feels good.
I'm an antinatalist, yet there was a time when I saw the value of me being born. The latest years of my mother's life I took care for her. Had I not been born, she would have spend them much more miserable.
I fulfilled the goal of my life, that was: to outlive my parents. Although I miss them, my life is easier now, because that responsibility isn't there anymore.
That's something I hadn't considered, thank you for sharing that perspective.
On the flip side of your situation - my mother is an abusive alcoholic and because of that she will die alone and miserable if it's left up to me.
So, there has never been and will never be value to my existence.
Stop falling for the illusion of the flesh, the flesh is not the truth.
Sorry for your loss dude.
@@Othique What do you mean by: "value to my existence"
It drives me nuts that I keep finding topics I agree with Alex on! Lol. Then again, the reasoning that leads us to the conclusion is also important. There's plenty of other channels I'm watching that disagree with me.
I should just enjoy having at least one place where people agree with me. (Compared to, the Father is the "ultimate authority," that I grew up with, it feels odd.)
Do you know what his views are on antinatalism? I know he's interested in it but do we know if he's swayed by it?
@@katie6384 I believe at 25:10 he states that he's not accepting it personally at the moment, but I might have misunderstood him (they were discussing different premises and he could have just been saying that he disagrees with the premises)
I find myself agreeing with a number of things that I once thought to be incorrect and now stand aside from many people I know on several different philosophical topics. However, no matter how often I give the antinationalist argument a chance and listen to it, I still can not accept all of their premises, nor their conclusion. I keep giving it a shot, but I think this is one philosophical stance I don't see myself taking anytime soon.
4 NOBILE TRUTHS.
ua-cam.com/video/Vjm2zdQ5ll0/v-deo.html
Super interesting stuff. My wife and are childless for a lot of the reasons discussed
Respect to you and your wife, sir
are the two of you enjoying life?
@@AI3Dorinte yes indeedy :)
How do you feel about the fact that the future will be inherited by the descendants of people who didn't believe in these views?
@@aronchai I don't care specifically about that, but I like the idea that more people choose not to have children, and therefore create less human pressure on the planet.
I think there is a non-freewill argument here. i.e. most people believe they want/should have children, largely driven by reproductive drives. For whatever reason, I "choose" not to want to have children. Most people will not have that choice.
Of course these interviews with philosophers are your best videos keep it up
This was an engaging and interesting conversation in my opinion. My initial reaction to this, especially considering that I’ve read ‘Better Never to have been’ and Benatar’s more recent book ‘The Human Predicament’ and thought they were beautifully written and very well argued books, was that he came up short against Alex and did not represent his position well. However, upon listening to this conversation a 2nd time have recognized a couple of things, alongside having my perspective toward their conversation updated and ultimately changed.
1. This is an immensely difficult topic and our initial reaction will be very much guided by our personal bias for or against the position. In other words, your first impression, though strong and emotional, doesn’t account for much. You have to keep digging.
2. Alex’s patience in reiterating his points was not simply for the sake of being cordial or gentlemanly, but because professor Benatar’s objections were quite well founded and Alex’s follow up questions did indeed often deviate from there starting point of the topic at hand, and Benatar was simply trying to monitor this so as to avoid the discussion becoming too multilayered for its own good.
3. Professor Benatar’s argument style is quite different than Alex’s, giving the impression that they were not particularly well suited for a debate since their styles tended to jump around each other, but in reality (upon 2nd listen) they had a type of conversation that some of us are a bit impatient with and therefore rather dead to, i.e. nuanced and probing rather than knockdown and brutal.
It’s disappointing to me that so many people who comment on these debates have never read Benatar’s work, and I, like Alex, urge you to do so if you haven’t. I haven’t really heard an argument (including most of Alex’s here) that he doesn’t address in his books and other works, so if you have a disagreement you will most likely be able to find them in his work.
I’m not interested in debating here as it tends to be people just wanting to name call and put down, so my comment is more in favor of relistening to this episode if you felt frustrated by it on first exposure.
It is in no way a stand in for Benatar’s books as I think we expect take down after take down when listening to a debate, especially when you consider the weight of the topic, but his books do exactly what they need to. That is, approach a profoundly difficult and heavy subject with careful consideration and respect for other views, while showing how they are deeply mislead, even though they are often more intuitive.
Again, just a plea to actually read the work of a philosopher instead of listening to one podcast and assuming you know everything you need to know about the subject, thus strawmanning the position.
Wonderful content and I learned quite a bit upon 2nd listen. Thank you
The New Yorker magazine did a profile on Banatar awhile back, quite good. Have you read it?
@@ludwigbeethoven3119 No but thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out.
20:38 I'd push back on that. For a person who is alive, the deprivation of pleasure is not intrinsically bad. The suffering that results from pleasure deprivation is why it's bad.
So only suffering can be bad.
@@lucioh1575 Yep. Pleasure or lack of it is at best neutral. Lack of pleasure can present itself as suffering though.
@@HarshDeshpande91 I agree with you. Maybe you'd like my video on my channel lmao
@@lucioh1575 Oh cool! Will check it out. Haha
@@HarshDeshpande91 I'm currently editing a video on the right to die.
To me, Whatever happens, happens, but I will not put another human being on this planet and condemn him/her to the pains and horrors of life.
The first two decades of life are fun, but after that, life is shitty for almost everyone.
You have to be really really lucky to lead a life devoid of any painful situations in life.
Given those odds, it's definitely morally wrong to reproduce.
You're absolutely right. The real tragedy is how few people will acknowledge this.
For a non native English speaker It was a bit heavy conversation to follow, but i think the fact that I've been an antinatalism myself for 4 years now helped to kinda get the most of it .
in my analysis of life
I completely agree with benatar
we're birthed,forced to go to school,work,compete,forced to become wage slaves,we're essentially slaves,to our very own demanding biological requirements,forced to do chores,essentially 99% of our lives,is usually spent,doing things,we rather not be doing
better,to not have been born
Pain is intrinsically bad
conception is pleasurable,and natural
this is where the 'deception' begins
and then from there
we're birthed through 'pain'
birthed into 'pain'
and many of us,will suffer
a very 'painful' death as well.
this life is torturous,we're forced,to struggle,everday,for our very basic human needs.
My interpretation is different though. I see it as though I have the privilege of living, loving, being educated, facing challenges, struggling, fighting against the odds, pursuing goals, until it's game over. I'm not saying my interpretation is more accurate, only different.
so you're against capitalism then?
It is unique to hear a philosopher SO resistant to hypothetical scenarios. It did make for an interesting back and forth.
Yeah he's afraid of supporting promortalism for his public image most likely.
@@lucioh1575 I assume that he views the negative consequences of legitimizing promortalism to a large audience to outweigh the good of engaging with the hypotheticals
@@aronchai Perhaps, yes. I'm a promortalist myself but perhaps some other less mentally stable ones could see it as a good idea to do mass shootings and such.
Lucioh Disturbing
@@aronchai That's what people imagine, imo. I've never talked no another promortalist wanting to do such things even though I talk to me.
I can answer the asymmetry: you can always regret being born but you can never regret not existing because you didn't exist in the first place
Also, that was good point about it. If you think NOT creating someone deprives them of pleasure AND that is a bad thing, how can you justify not creating as many people as possible? So you either accept the asymmetry that deprivation of pleasure on potential existence is neutral and that deprivation of harm on potential existence is good, OR you realize you've done wrong by not reproducing to the maximum
Counterpoint to that statement: It would be that reproducing past a certain point would lead to an increase in suffering for the potential person because of a decline in resources. The correct answer would be reproduce to the largest amount that the new individuals would receive a certain quality in life.
This was a fascinating conversation to listen to as a Christian living with a severe physical disability.
I'm almost grateful to those who are nihilistic towards life in the comments section because your lack of inspiration fills me with resolve to bare the pain I shall face in the future and fills me with courage that I shall bare it successfully for I have something you all lack; hope.
Even being lucky and privileged I have never saw life as a net positive for myself. I honestly never got why people are so hype to be alive. It's MOSTLY tedious. And the happiest I've ever felt isn't worth the worst I've ever felt. I'd have chosen not to be born looking back lol. I'm to scared to end it tho so I just suck it up
The inevitable end point of atheism eh
I'm an atheist but I massively disagree with you, it is literally hard baked into you biologically to survive so your claim just seems silly to me.
@@conehead4133 might seem silly but that doesn't mean it's not true. Not all people feel the same. Maybe a disorder on my part who knwos
i think at the end of the day, in the grand scheme of things, life is meaningless.
because of that i appreciate life and shit. it dosen't matter anyway, so i just try and enjoy it.
life is all about coping and telling yourself how right and awesome it is to be alive
The key point here is that once you exist and you suffer, you are then forced to make a choice of whether to continue existing or not. Anti-natalism solves that. No need of any action.