An Analysis of Benatar and Existence
Is a life only of pleasure a good life? Or, is it better to never live at all?
Many of us operate under the assumption that being brought into existence is seen as a “benefit”, and that one does no wrong by bringing into existence people whose lives will be good in balance. Contrary to this belief, philosopher David Benatar, in the article “Why it is Better Never to Come Into Existence”, claims that being brought into existence is not only a harm, but is always a harm. He believes that if only those persons who exist suffer harm, and harm is inevitable to life, it is therefore better to never exist in the first place.
Benatar describes an asymmetry of pain and pleasure which follows as such:
A. The presence of pain is bad.
B. The presence of pleasure is good.
C. The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
D. The absence of pleasure is not bad, unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
Conjectures C and D reveal the asymmetry between pain and pleasure, showing that existence has no advantage over nonexistence. When a person exists, they experience both the badness of pain and the goodness of pleasure. When a person does not exist, they do not experience the badness of pain and the goodness of pleasure. So long as there are some negative aspects to existence, even if they might be considered meaningless or frivolous, existing is not preferable to never having come into existence in the first place.
It seems as though Benatar would agree that even if one had a life full of ecstasy and joy, if that person got a single hangnail they would suffer a harm, and it would have been better if they never came into existence. Intuitively, we would believe that a life almost exclusively of pleasure, but with one singular instance of pain, would still be a worthwhile existence. It is apparent that there is something wrong with Benatar’s argument.
The presence of pain is actually not bad, in fact, the presence of pain is good. While one might not necessarily choose to stub their toe, get bitten by a mosquito, or fail a test, these pains are essential to the proper comprehension of pleasure.
For example, say I was to hike Mount Everest. My legs are hurting, it is cold and windy, I have eaten peanut butter sandwiches for days, and worst of all, I cannot use my cell phone. While these are all considerable pains, it becomes worth it in the end when I reach the very top, with an incredible view of the sunrise over the Himalayan Mountain Range. As I hike down, I acknowledge the pains that occurred over the course of the journey, while also reveling in the pleasure of accomplishing such a feat. The pain experienced is not only good, but necessary to the ultimate feeling of pleasure gained from the experience.
Benatar would likely respond to this by claiming that the argument that pain is good only considers pain as an instrumental good, rather than considering it as an intrinsic good. An intrinsic good is a good that is worth pursuing for its own sake; it makes life better in and of itself. An instrumental good is worth pursuing insofar as it helps us to obtain intrinsic goods; it alone does not make life better in and of itself. In the Mount Everest case, the pain experienced along the hike is only “good” because it ultimately invokes us to feel pleasure at the summit. There is no scenario in which pain is worth pursuing solely for the sake of feeling pain; for example, if you were to hike Mount Everest and died twenty feet from the summit, there would be no resulting pleasure, only pain. It seems, then, that pain is intrinsically bad and cannot be considered to be good in and of itself.
In reply to this, I would instead argue that choosing pain just to experience pain is essential in gaining perspective of what it is to have a truly happy experience. One chooses to experience the pain of hiking Mount Everest, not necessarily to get to the top, but to do something that is hard, challenging, and painful. Pain is inevitable to life, and when I apply to colleges, I am choosing to experience the pain of rejection, and when I do not study for an exam, I am choosing to experience the pain of failure. If pleasure is the only experience, there is no capacity for conceptualizing what true pleasure means, because there are no experiences of pain to compare it to. Choosing pain to experience pain ensures that the resulting action is felt in comparison with other pleasures, developing a spectrum of feeling and a balanced perspective on life.
With that in mind, it is important to acknowledge that pain is always an instrumental good. The smaller pleasures of a unique view of the Himalayan mountain range, or meaningful relationships built with fellow climbers, or even a sip of hot tea in the tent after being exposed to the cold all day, are all pleasures experienced despite dying before summiting. There are always smaller instances of pain that occur throughout every pleasurable experience, I will never ace a test without lots of painful studying, I will never run a marathon without lots of painful training, and I will never write a good paper without lots of painful editing. Thus, there is pleasure and perspective gained from experiencing pain in all occurrences.
Therefore, it is good to say that one wishes to bring a person into existence who will experience pain, because this pain brings about the appreciation for the true goodness of pleasure, and the true sorrow of pain. Pain can be good in and of itself, but the fact that it always helps us to experience pleasure pushes us to acknowledge the abundant benefits of pain. While the absence of pain seems to be appealing, without having ever experienced pain, one lacks a true understanding of what true pleasure actually is. Pain is both inevitable to life and necessary for a truly content experience because it allows one to value the good and the bad.
Related Posts
