http://www.livrariacultura.com.br/scripts/cultura/resenha/resenha.asp?nitem=2446364&sid=001630228121015759743824281&k5=2BC052&uid=
Applied Ethics. Very argumentative. Benatar has caused turmoil in some philosophical circles. He's been read by people in Cambridge, Oxford, Princeton and other great knowledge centers. His ideas are indeed a threat to many of our naive assumptions. He criticizes common moral conclusions using premises that are generally accepted. He assumes for example that the reader agrees that:
1) it is wrong to bring someone into the world if that is going to cause that person so much pain.
e.g. If you are sure that person is going to have AIDS or live in extreme poverty, so that she will suffer immensely a excruciating pain.
2) He, then, argues that all lives, even the best ones are very bad.
3) Therefore, it is wrong to procreate.
Further conclusions:
In this line of thought, abortion, for instance, in the early stages of pregnancy is not only right, but morally mandatory. In addition, he establishes a very important difference between "lives worth continuing" and "lives worth starting", arguing that we are not morally obliged to kill ourselves. Absolutely not. But since by bringing someone into life I will expose this person to serious harm, it is best not to bring anyone into life.
Arguments to defend 2:
1) Pleasures and the hedonistic project are condemned to defeat, since any pleasures you have will not be able to undo the pain you will necessarily suffer.
2) Pain is part of the structure of the world and by bringing someone into life you are, ipso facto, exposing that person to serious harm. We entirely overlook the daily discomforts of daily life, even thought they are so pervasive. Even the best lives are very bad, because our pleasures or moments of desire fulfillment are so few compared to the common negative states we experience everyday constantly. And this in a healthy common life, not to say someone who has a terminal disease or something worse.
3) Happiness is but a temporary absence of suffering, satisfaction is the ephemeral fulfillment of desire.
e.g. After one has eaten or taken liquid, bowel and bladder discomfort ensues quite naturally and we have to seek relief. There are moments or even periods of satisfaction, but they occur against a background of dissatisfied striving.
Against the view that humans cause the world to be so bad, he said the following, during a radio interview, when unexpectedly, many listeners called saying they agreed with his thesis that it is wrong to procreate, causing surprise during the radio-show:
“Well I certainly think that humans have contributed their fair share of misery to the planet. (...) But I think even if we did everything right, nature is still constructed in such a way that there would be an immense amount of suffering. It’s just unavoidable, It’s written so deeply into the structure of sentient life that it’s unavoidable. We can minimize it or maximize it, now I certainly think we should minimize the amount of pain that there is, but we can’t even come close to eliminating it all.”
All that said, if you had never existed, you would not feel pain, nor die everyday, constantly, bit by bit. Therefore, someone who hasn't been brought to life, who technically isn't even a person yet, is in clear advantage to someone who came into being. Ergo, it is wrong to bring someone to life.
I believe this book will become a philosophical classic, probably not as much as Nagel's Mortal Questions, but perhaps something close to it. He's certainly an author I liked to read. His book is very clear. It is important to mention that he does not assume prior philosophical knowledge from the reader and that the book is very concise.
I highly recommend it.
No comments:
Post a Comment