Search

THE PRIMARY ARGUMENT OF DAVID BENATAR'S Better Never to Have Been is an argument for the claim that coming into existence is always harmful, because it is always worse for an individual to begin to exist than never to have existed (Benatar 2006: 30-49). Thus, it is always morally wrong to procreate. Several commentators have objected to this argument, including Persson (2009), Doyal (2007), McMahan (2009), Harman (2009) and Kaposy (2009). While each of these commentators raises important points, the most fundamental problem has not been identified. in what follows, I explain the argument and identify the problem. I. Benatar's Asymmetry Argument We will follow Benatar and suppose, for the purposes of this argument, that hedonism is true: pleasure and pain are the only basic intrinsic goods and evils. (1) Benatar asks us to compare a situation (A) in which an individual comes into existence, and thereafter experiences some pleasures and pains, with a situation (B) in which the person never comes into existence. Benatar argues that we should accept the following two claims concerning these two scenarios: (1) The absence of pain in (B) is intrinsically better than the presence of pain in (A). (2) The presence of pleasure in (A) is not intrinsically better than the absence of pleasure in (B) (2006: 41-2). Given these two claims, we can conclude that (B) is better than (A)--that is, it is better not to exist than to exist--since not existing is better in one way than existing, but existing is not better in any way than not existing. Thus, coming into existence is always harmful, and nobody should ever have children. The asymmetry between (1) and (2) is supposed to be justified by the explanatory work that it does. For one thing, it is supposed to explain why it is obligatory to fail to procreate when procreating would result in a bad life for the child, but it is not obligatory to procreate when the resulting child would have a good life. Having a bad life is a disadvantage relative to having no life, per (1), but having a good life is not an advantage relative to having no life, per (2). Furthermore, it would help solve Parfit's "non-identity problem" (Parfit 1984: 358); it would explain why it is impermissible to procreate knowingly in cases where (i) the resulting person would have a painful disease, (ii) the person would nevertheless have a life that is good overall, but (iii) the parents could have instead conceived a different child who would not have had the disease. The pains experienced by the child count against conception, per (1), but the pleasures do not count in favor, per (2); thus procreation is wrong in this case too. An important point of clarification: Benatar does not claim that pleasure is never better than its absence. it is better when there is a person who is deprived of the pleasure. When the person never exists, on the other hand, there is no deprivation. in such cases, pleasure is not better than its absence (2006: 41). This distinction is taken to be critical by Benatar but, as I will show in section III, it does not help Benatar's argument at all. II. The Logic of Betterness There are many ways in which one might wish to object to Benatar's argument. We might ask for whom the absence of pain is better. We might argue that we can better explain the difference in our claims about procreation by appealing to a distinction between positive and negative rights, or some other important distinction. But none of this is necessary, for the problem with Benatar's argument is very simple: (2) is incompatible with the meanings of "good" and "better." if pleasure is intrinsically good, and the absence of pleasure is not, then pleasure must be intrinsically better than the absence of pleasure. To claim otherwise is to wreak havoc with the logic of preferability or betterness. i suggest (uncharitably) that, despite the extensive discussion Benatar's asymmetry has generated, nobody in fact understands what Benatar is asserting with his asymmetry claim--for if they did, they would recognize that it is incoherent. …

Virtue consequentialism is the view that whether a character trait is a virtue or a vice depends on the value of its consequences. This chapter first briefly traces the historical development of virtue consequentialism from John Locke through G. E. Moore and spells out the different ways in which the view has been formulated. It is argued that the best version of virtue consequentialism is a scalar, contrastive version according to which there are no absolute facts about which character traits are virtues. The chapter then examines arguments in favor of virtue consequentialism by Julia Driver, such as the argument that there are virtues of ignorance, and arguments against by Michael Slote, Robert Adams, and Todd Calder.

Many of us feel existential terror when contemplating our future nonexistence. I examine several attempts to rationally justify existential terror. The most promising of these appeals to the effects of future nonexistence on the meaningfulness of our lives. I argue that even this justification fails, and therefore existential terror is irrational.

This paper examines the implications of the context-sensitivity of counterfactuals for the correctness of emotions and attitudes towards death. I argue that the correctness of an attitude such as fear must be explained by appeal to its causal relations to certain preferences.

It is often said that while we have a strong reason not to create someone who will be badly off, we have no strong reason for creating someone who will be well off. In this paper I argue that this asymmetry is incompatible with a plausible principle of independence of irrelevant alternatives, and that a more general asymmetry between harming and benefiting is difficult to defend. I then argue that, contrary to what many have claimed, it is possible to harm or benefit someone by bringing her into existence.

In Goodness and Justice, Joseph Mendola defends three related views in normative ethics: a novel form of consequentialism, a Bentham-style hedonism about “basic” value, and a maximin principle about the value of a world. In defending these views he draws on his views in metaethics, action theory, and the philosophy of mind. It is an ambitious and wide-ranging book. I begin with a quick explanation of Mendola’s views, and then raise some problems.

A popular view about why death is bad for the one who dies is that death deprives its subject of the good things in life. This is the ‘deprivation account’ of the evil of death. The deprivation account might be considered the ‘received view’ concerning the evil of death. But the deprivation account entails that there need be no relationship between the disvalue of someone's death and the quality of the life that preceded it. It is often thought that a person's death is less tragic, or less bad, if she has lived a good life or accomplished great things.

Sometimes people desire that their lives go badly, take pleasure in their lives going badly, or believe that their lives are going badly. As a result, some popular theories of welfare are paradoxical. I show that no attempt to defend those theories from the paradox fully succeeds.

The move to satisficing has been thought to help consequentialists avoid the problem of demandingness. But this is a mistake. In this article I formulate several versions of satisficing consequentialism. I show that every version is unacceptable, because every version permits agents to bring about a submaximal outcome in order to prevent a better outcome from obtaining. Some satisficers try to avoid this problem by incorporating a notion of personal sacrifice into the view. I show that these attempts are unsuccessful. I conclude that, if satisficing consequentialism is to remain a position worth considering, satisficers must show (i) that the move to satisficing is necessary to solve some problem, whether it be the demandingness problem or some other problem, and (ii) that there is a version of the view that does not permit the gratuitous prevention of goodness.

Recent literature on intrinsic value contains a number of disputes about the nature of the concept. On the one hand, there are those who think states of affairs, such as states of pleasure or desire satisfaction, are the bearers of intrinsic value (“Mooreans”); on the other hand, there are those who think concrete objects, like people, are intrinsically valuable (“Kantians”). The contention of this paper is that there is not a single concept of intrinsic value about which Mooreans and Kantians have disagreed, but rather two distinct concepts. I state a number of principles about intrinsic value that have typically (though not universally) been held by Mooreans, all of which are typically denied by Kantians. I show that there are distinct theoretical roles for a concept of intrinsic value to play in a moral framework. When we notice these distinct theoretical roles, we should realize that there is room for two distinct concepts of intrinsic value within a single moral framework: one that accords with some or all of the Moorean principles, and one that does not.

Virtue consequentialism has been held by many prominent philosophers, but has never been properly formulated. I criticize Julia Driver's formulation of virtue consequentialism and offer an alternative. I maintain that according to the best version of virtue consequentialism, attributions of virtue are really disguised comparisons between two character traits, and the consequences of a trait in non-actual circumstances may affect its actual status as a virtue or vice. Such a view best enables the consequentialist to account for moral luck, unexemplified virtues, and virtues and vices involving the prevention of goodness and badness.

I. SCHEFFLER’S ARGUMENT In “Doing and Allowing,” Samuel Scheffler argues for the following conclusion concerning doing and allowing: “Provided people view themselves as subject to norms of individual responsibility . . . , they cannot accept any system of normative responsibility that does not, to some extent at least, assign them greater responsibility for what they do than for what they allow.” The heart of his argument is in the following passage: “To see oneself as subject to norms of responsibility is to see oneself as having reason to bring one’s conduct into conformity with those norms. But bringing one’s conduct into conformity with norms of individual responsibility is itself something one does, and not something that one merely allows to happen. It requires marshaling the full resources of one’s agency, including one’s capacities for deliberation, choice, and action.” It will be helpful to clarify the basic structure of his argument and label the premises. The argument seems to go like this

Accoding to G.E. Moore, something's intrinsic valuedepends solely on its intrinsic nature. Recently Thomas Hurka andShelly Kagan have argued, contra Moore, that something's intrinsic valuemay depend on its extrinsic properties. Call this view the ‘ConditionalView’ of intrinsic value. In this paper I demonstrate how a Mooreancan account for purported counterexamples given by Hurka and Kagan. I thenargue that certain organic unities pose difficulties for the ConditionalView.

Au-dela des differentes justifications de la these preservationniste developpees par R. Elliot, Holmes Roston et R. Attfield a partir des notions de valeur intrinseque et valeur intrumentale, l'A. defend la valeur contributive et la valeur de la variete des especes en danger, contre l'elimination des organismes vivants.