Better to be, or not to be?
“Life is so terrible, it would have been better not to have been born. Who is so lucky? Not one in a hundred thousand!” (Benatar, 2006)
David Benatar’s “Better Never to Have Been” asserts that it is always better to have not been born than to have been born (Benatar, 2006). Benatar’s assertions are founded on the unavoidable toils and follies of life to which he places far more weight than the opposing, chipper side of life. The focus placed on the “negative” aspects of life heavily outweighs Benatar’s focus on the “positive” aspects of life. More specifically, Benatar suggests that no matter how many “positive” experiences one has, the inevitable “negative” experiences that occurred alongside those moments will always outweigh and render pointless, any positive experience. Supplemented with this notion of default negative bias, the crux of Benatar’s argument is that procreation is therefore selfish, willfully damaging and forced upon the recipient, and an act of condemnation of future generations. Granted, given this pessimistic perspective, Benatar suggests that one need not jump to suicide, or begin the next global genocide as the only logical next move, only that one should attempt to limit the continuation of suffering through abstaining from procreation. Alternatively, one surely cannot be alone in the suggestion that life arose for some purpose (be it logical from a human perspective or otherwise), beyond creating a plane of existence to torture and tease biological machines whose sense of self and capacity for reflection in turn swell the effect of torture. For one’s sanity, and less humorously, for the sake of existential accuracy, I will argue that in fact being born is better than to have never been born. It is appropriate to first pay homage to Benatar and explore his perspective more deeply in the next paragraph, to both better represent his ideas, and to make a more powerful case in favour of life and its fruits in the following paragraphs.
Benatar’s Argument
The opening monologue to Benatar’s essay “Better Never to Have Been” offers an interesting perspective regarding the consensual nature of entering existence. The notion of having never signed an existential consent form gives one the sense that life is thrust upon us, a fact only to be realized far too late, after birth. Moreover, the fact that there is no individual before birth to consent, and that it is only in the act of being birthed that one becomes an individual demonstrates our lack of choice in the matter. There then must have never been a person who decided to be born and thus, it is entering person-hood that Benatar has pointed out to be the least favourable outcome. This idea of non- consensual existence is a critical component of Benatar’s perspective which serves as a foundation for his argument. Given our non-consensual existence, procreation is suggested to be one of life’s greatest transgressions because it is an act of willful condemnation to its recipient whom will more than likely later share and indulge in the desire to procreate. If nature has an intellect, it has ingeniously coupled the pleasure of sex with the evolutionary necessity of procreation. The human innate desire to procreate is therefore, from Benatar’s perspective, thought to be overcome, rather than indulged in, a thought which Benatar supplements with the suggestion that the degree of maturity in an individual or society is reflected by a reduction in birth rate. Having children is thought to be part of the development of adulthood and thus displays a level of failure if one fails to procreate, which Benatar suggests to be an unnecessary source of suffering (he would argue that maturity is displayed by knowing when not to have a child). If maturity somewhat represents one’s capacity for self control, and therefore overcoming short term desire, a reflective drop in desire indulgence surely follows. Although abstinence in many forms is an impressive act of willful determination, it is most typically carried out by individuals or societies that use the act as a representation of their faith to an idea, metaphysical or otherwise. The biological systems that create the sensations of desire are strong motivators, which causes the abstaining to be physically and mentally difficult or uncomfortable. The very act of abstinence is carried out because it is a difficult act aimed at overcoming very strong, evolutionary necessary primitive systems to gain existential favour for oneself in some degree. If one’s true motivation is to limit the suffering of individuals, one could question the utility of abstinence in this respect. It must be understood that Benatar is not suggesting abstaining from sex, which may be gathered from the devotional example, but rather that he is suggesting abstinence from procreation to save the “would be” individuals.
Another component of Benatar’s argument suggests that the negative experiences one inevitably goes through will always outweigh any number of positive experiences. Admittedly, suffering and enduring negative experiences is an unavoidable component of life. This tendency to place more weight on experiences that lead to a negative outcome for an individual is known as a negative bias (Sheldon & King, 2001). Negative bias is theorized to partition favour towards memories that are more likely to lead to protective behaviours, such as remembering how hot a flame is, while allocating less resources towards more trivial memories. This innate tendency to remember and more readily activate associations with negative memories over positive ones is imagined to have played a protective role in humanity’s infancy, and still does in many respects. Although we are long removed from our ancestral cognition, there still exists a large component of “out dated” machinery that orients our attention in ways that are potentially less beneficial, and in some ways, deleterious. Humanity’s capacity for adaptation is impressive, albeit slow. The biological structures that gave rise to the once highly protective responses to negative experiences will surely continue to change and adapt. In conclusion, Benatar places a large focus in the innateness of negative bias while simultaneously suggesting that the desire to procreate is to be forgone and only leads to creating more suffering.
The ethical framework from which my argument is motivated is, ironically, from a desire to limit suffering. The origin of the suffering that I wish to address however, is based on perspective; how one sees the world and how it relates to us is highly derived from perspective. To recall a previous example using the idea of abstinence, one can agree that the act of abstaining is motivated by a desire of proving one’s devotion to an idea. I argue, that instead of abstaining from procreation in an effort to reduce the subsequent suffering of life’s recipients, an effort is made to abstain from engaging in the default negative bias that paints our experiences as negative or positive. More specifically, I argue that life’s quality is a matter of perspective, therefore rendering every experience as neutral until it is judged by the individual. Through the judgement of an experience as either negative or positive, an individual inhibits oneself from seeing that experience in an alternative, potentially more useful way. Judgments that are born from a place of individual subjectivity are often made in a way such that it may protect an individual’s psychology in some way, such as placing one’s peers below oneself on a status hierarchy to elevate one’s sense of social esteem. Although not all judgments are socially damaging, the capacity to re-evaluate one’s judgments is a very beneficial skill to have. The utility in being able to re-evaluate once negative or positive experiences is beneficial because of the utter complexity and uniqueness behind each judgement can lead to highly generalized, unconscious judgments. The inability to re- evaluate and reconsider its effect is perfectly demonstrated in traumatized populations. For example, if one learns to associate fear with a white rabbit due to some repeated exposure to some aversive experience that always happens to occur when a white rabbit is around, one would surely pin the experience, or part of its effect, on the rabbit (Watson & Rayner, 1920). If one stays in the default negative bias, the capacity for peripheral, non associative objects to activate that negative associative pathway becomes larger and larger, before almost any possible object or experience activates that association. More simply put, the receptive field of that association becomes so large that life itself may become the trigger for the association. Being able to re-evaluate judgments and experiences therefore maintains the proper boundaries of association for protective fears (being afraid of snakes is protective, being afraid of anything green, long, or small is not). It seems that the innate negative bias that supports Benatar’s arguments is an example that closely mirrors our white rabbit. Benatar has fallen prey to a hyper-individualist perspective born out of anti-traditionalism, which bastardized one of -humanity’s greatest feats: survival. Although once protective, the suggestion that all of life is therefore suffering because it contains within it, elements of suffering, is an error. Furthermore, albeit useful to re-evaluate experiences to alter the way they are remembered and acted upon later on, there also comes the possibility of reaching psychological states of objectivity (such that dipping into the experience bank is no longer required, and instead one is actively parallel processing experiences in the present). Objectivity, or the capacity to remove, or temporarily suspend one’s personal virtues, opinions, and preferences, is thought to be an achievable state where the usefulness of judging experiences as positive or negative is rendered moot. The utility in objectivity stems from one’s capacity or effort to act out of what one senses as a deeper truth, or nature. Although living a life of objectivity is a double- edged sword, you are simultaneously freed from the negative and positive effects of judgement, it is far more appealing and ethically considerate than living a life where one believes life is an inevitable curse. By attempting to live life as objectively as possible, one can first utilize otherwise negative or positive experiences to assess one’s judgments for levels of stubborn subjectivity. Then, as mentioned before, one no longer needs to reflect on past experiences, but can fully attend to the experiences as they are happening. There are entire sects of people who devote their lives in an effort to live in this way. It is suggested that by slowly removing the individual’s innate tendency to immediately define an experience as useful or damaging, an individual is living a more peaceful life, significantly more removed from suffering than those who believe life is torture. It is not far fetched to suggest that the perception of having had either a negative or positive experience deems the tone of that experience. The tendency to define an experience as either positive or negative stems from our subjectivity, our sense of individuality, and what an experience means for our personal safety, status, etc. It is in one’s capacity for objectivity that allows one to see beyond the immediate effect of the experience. Through the attempt of developing an objective perspective, one is acknowledging that although an experience may otherwise seem quite negative or positive, one does not know the true final cause or effect of that experience.
In conclusion, Benatar’s argument that it is better to never have been born because of the immense suffering that each lifetime is expected to experience is notable, yet incomplete. Two critical components of Benatar’s errors lay in the selective nature of what natural mechanisms are to be indulged in and which are not. Firstly, the suggestion that because procreation is one of life’s greatest transgressions, the desire to indulge in procreation must be overridden (it is even suggested that only the mature can truly override these hind-brain desires). Surprisingly Benatar then suggests that life is rendered pointless or worse due to the inevitable negative experiences one will endure. This response is born completely out of a primitive survival mechanism, the observable and well documented tendency of negative bias. One believes that Benatar has only recognized one of two primitive survival mechanisms and has cast the other aside as less meaningful, while one argues that both should be viewed as equal, especially if maturity is cited as an independent variable. Essentially, one feels it irresponsible to title an individual as mature if they resist the natural desire to procreate, while simultaneously indulging in the natural tendency to place far more weight in negative experiences than positive ones. The neo-mammalian cognitive structures that offer us the ability to override the desire to procreate, are very closely related to the same structures that assist in experience evaluation, a sense of self, and altering one’s perception. A great deal of life is learning how to navigate the systems in play, what comes naturally and what must be worked at. Working towards an objective state of being, rendering positive and negative experiences moot, is an impressive, useful, ethical goal. I argue that instead of trying to override the desire to procreate to reduce further suffering, we decide to override the default negative bias and choose to live a life that closely resembles objectivity.
Bibliography
Benatar, D. (2006). Better never to have been: the harm of coming into existence. Oxford: Oxford
Scholarship Online.
Sheldon, K. M., & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is necessary. American Psychologist, 56(3), 216-
217. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.216
Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 3(1), 1-14. doi:10.1037/h0069608
