(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best medical ethics books

Not the person you replied to, and myself unlikely to reply, but basically, the logic goes as follows:

There are lives worth starting and lives worth continuing (for me, this is an intuition that I can't really explain, unfortunately): There is a cutoff point for the quality of life where it would not be worth starting. Basically: what is the maximum probability of a child having leukemia to say that the child's life wouldn't be worth starting?

I believe most people would consider it immoral to start the life of a child that has a 99% chance of having leukemia, but people would object to ending a child's life if it had the same chance of having leukemia. Soft anti-natalists follow the same logic, but set the bar a lot higher: a life has to be extremely good to be worth starting, but not that good to be worth continuing, in fact, very few (or no) people have lives that would have been worth starting. Hard anti-natalists hold that under all conditions, even blissful perfect lives, are not worth starting, but I don't understand the logic they follow.

Also, a lot of anti-natalists hold that life tends to be net negative hedonistically, or believe that preventing suffering is ethically more important than creating happiness (some form of negative utilitarianism or suffering focused ethics).

So, what is to be done? Well, there are, like in every other movement, more and less radical approaches. A soft anti-natalist has two answers: First, try to improve the quality of the lives of people already living and the people that will become born no matter what one does. Second, not bring new children (or even other sentient beings) into the world unless you're really sure their lives are worth starting. A hard anti-natalist would argue that it would be ethical for the the human species to go extinct (because bringing new people into existince is always bad).

Practically, anti-natalists advocate for spreading of birth-control (it brings down the birth rate), adopting instead of procreating (and maybe even raising children on anti-natalist memes, but only carefully). More careful anti-natalists like David Pearce propose that anti-natalism fails because it is a genetically self-defeating strand of thought, and attempting to improve the lives of present and future people is a much better strategy.

Wow, I wrote a lot more than I thought. The most well-known book on anti-natalism is by the philosopher David Benatar: “Better to never have been”, but I've only skimmed it. He strikes me as a very careful thinker, but I am of course biased.

Be forewarned, I am going to sketch this out very crudely. Okay, that being said...

I think there are three common answers in philosophy concerning the value of life which is a reflection of the general split in philosophy between three major ethical views -

• Kantian Deontology
  
  
• Consequentialist Utilitarianism
  
  
• Virtue Ethics.
  
  Consequentialist Utilitarianism - Life isn't valuable, not directly. What is directly valuable is pleasure (or maybe satisfied desire) and what is directly disvaluable is suffering (or maybe unfulfilled desire). Either way, destroying life often leads to more suffering and less pleasure for those left alive. Furthermore, destroying life destroys the only place pleasure (which is valuable) can exist. Alternatively: if desire is really what matters rather than pleasure, destroying life leaves a lot of people's desires unfulfilled as well as destroying the only place where fulfilled desires can exist.
  
  Kantian Deontology - Life isn't valuable, not directly. Free choice is the only thing that is directly valuable. But usually you can't go around destroying life without also violating free choice. If life didn't exist, it wouldn't be a big deal. When the Kantian says free choice is the only thing that is directly valuable, the Kantian doesn't mean we need to maximize the number of free choices or free choosers--rather the Kantian means we have to respect already existing people's choices. So if no one existed, then there wouldn't be anything bad about it because it wouldn't involve violating anyone's choices. BUT life does exist and in order for life to go out of existence you would probably have to act against people's choices to keep living (which is the one wrong according to Kantians like me).
  
  Virtue Ethics - Here is the only position were you might get someone close to saying life is valuable directly. The idea here is that morality concerns being a good instance of the type of thing you are. So good knives are sharp ones that cut well, good wolves can hunt and work well with their pack, etc. Human beings are living beings (reproduce, self-maintain, etc). and human life specifically takes the form of living through the human capacity for abstract reflective judgment (i.e. taking into consideration many conflicting reasons relevant to their situation/decision, and making the right decision). Presumably you are bad at human life if you don't value your own life. Furthermore, you would be pretty immature, childish in the development of you capacity for reflective judgment if you didn't recognize some intrinsic value to life itself. Why is that immature not to recognize? Sorry childish person, you'll need to just grow out of your blindness to the intrinsic value of life. (I am not insulting you, I am only stressing the way in which being able to recognize what is and isn't intrinsically valuable according to the virtue ethics comes with the mature, skilled judgment of a good human being; presumably someone's unwillingness to see the intrinsic value of life would--according to the Virtue Ethicist--be rooted in their childishness in some respect).
  
  ____
  
  Myself, I am a Kantian concerning morality. But here is a recent work on the topic by a Utilitarian -
  
  Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence Paperback – September 15, 2008
  by David Benatar (Author)
  http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
  
  You might also look at some of Korsgaard's recent work on animal rights (where she tries to extend the Kantian position so that animal life is valuable in addition to free choice): http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/CMK.FellowCreatures.pdf
  
  
  

>I want to give my future kids the same opportunity that my parents gave me when they decided to reproduce, I want to bring them out of the void of unbeing and introduce them to all the wonder and the pain of being real.

The issue I have with this is that it's always a selfish act (having children), you cannot have a child for the child's sake. There is no way to gain consent currently from a non-existent person, but that consent is absolutely needed if you're to have any moral ground on having children. Who are you to speak for these people you act to know best for? How can you guarantee they will want to live, and will not suffer? You're essentially stealing the dice from another person and throwing them for them w/o consent and gambling with their life.

I wish my parents had the forethought to think perhaps I might not enjoy this horrible game we're all caught up in, and that bliss of void, which we all hopefully go back to anyways, might be much much much more loving and peaceful.

Cheerful optimism does far more harm than good, especially when it concerns antinatalism. We're still incapable of not forcing life on those that willfully wish to end it with dignity. We're scary with our imposition of life.


>Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence.

What you are describing isn't so much a mental state as it is a philosophical position. There are quite a few people, myself included, who believe people are better off not being born and that, consequently, bringing new sentient life into existence is a moral wrong. This position is called antinatalism and it is very rigorously argued for in Better Never to Have Been by philosopher David Benatar. (Here's an audio interview with him.) There's even a subreddit for antinatalism.

In antinatalism, it's very important to make the distinction between life that hasn't yet been started and life that has. While I can say it would have been better for me to never have existed, now that I do exist, I very much wish to continue existing. I didn't choose life, I was forced into it, but I try to make the most of the cards I've been dealt.

Edit. Also, the flip side of this is that I don't owe life, God, my parents or the cosmos anything, least of all my gratitude for being alive. I don't have any obligation to feel happy. Any feelings of gratitude or happiness are for my own benefit, and if I choose to leave early, I'm not being a poor guest.

>Also, cows have family bonds so that has to be taken into consideration.

This is true. However, I think there's a morally significant difference between a person of normal intelligence and a cow, because humans are capable of abstract thinking. A person is able to reflect on his own situation, as well as the current and possible future situation of his children in a way that a cow can't. People suffer on an intellectual level, whereas a cow doesn't. So when considering the greater amount of good, the needs of humans trumps the needs of cows.

>the question remains of whether it would be morally acceptable to kill a mentally disabled child and eat it for its meat if it does not have a family and no one finds out about it.

If you go by what I said in my comment, you'd be able to replace the word "child" with "cow" and get the same answer. The reason being that you can't find a morally significant difference between the two without resulting to speciesism.

I don't really have an answer to the question. I know the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer broaches the subject in his study of the ethics of abortion. You might want to check out his book Rethinking Life and Death

>What makes you think the suffering isn't worth it?

Well, this book provides arguments in favour of my point of view. But of course I don't think it's never worth it; merely that in most cases it isn't worth it. In the end of it all we are still all monkeys and our exchange proves it - you were so quick to jump to aggression and narcissism about your superior genes and my supposedly inferior ones. Don't mean it as an insult, actually I think it's quite a natural behavior which is part of why I'd rather not bring more people into this world or species. Humans are inherently vile and violent, the last century proved it well enough. It's always one surviving at the expense of another and I don't wish my children to be either of those - oppressor or a victim, both are bad enough to love through.

My genes might be damaged, then the best course of action is not to pass them; if they are not damaged, I'd rather not to pass them still, lest potential thousands of my descendants would have to go through survival and death.

Also, even if someone's genes were really superior, one should always keep in mind the existence of regression towards the mean which basically means an exceptional parent tends to gave mediocre children still (just like Einstein did). And to truly spread your genes you would need to have a great many of children. Suppose you have a boy XY and a girl XX. Then your son proceeded to have a child of his own: two daughters XX and XX. Hey share zero genes with you. And your daughter had two sons XY and XY. One of them shares with you 50% of their genes, but the other shares zero, because they inherited not your X chromosome, but that of your wife.

Here I assume you are a man and your chromosomes are in bold. That is the situation for your sex chromosome. With autosomal genes it's different: your input just gets diminished with each passing generations until you are as related to your grand-grand-... - children as to any stranger out there.

So you see, that legacy is tricky and is generally more up to chance than anything else.

> "You would be happier if you were dead!"

So there's a book on my shelf that basically argues that, on the whole, coming into existence was a pretty poor decision. Given that you're here, however, you may as well seek happiness where you can fine it. Looking forward to it.

I'm not going to be able to give this argument the clarity it deserves, but I will say just because I lack clarity does not mean that my argument is invalid. I based it off of my memory of this book https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265 that I would suggest to everyone that wants a child. This is just a book, not something that will automatically change your mind or anything, but it changed mine along with Albert Camus' work. I agree with the idea that we should try to enjoy the time we have, but don't bring someone else into it. Enjoy yourself while causing others as little suffering as possible

I thought this would be a fun piece to post on Mother's Day..

This blog post is written by David Benatar, a philosopher and ethicist most famous for giving the fullest defense of anti-natalism, the view that having children is morally problematic. Benatar outlines some of his views here, but the full position is found in his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.

If you're interested in that book but not enough to buy it or read the whole thing, two free reviews may be of interest:

• Notre Dame Philosophical Review
  
  
• Nous critical study
  
  There are also other anti-natalist philosophers you may be interested in. Most other anti-natalists are moderate anti-natalists, in that they believe there can be harms associated with procreation but it's not necessarily wrong (as opposed to Benatar, who believes that procreation is always morally wrong).
  
  One such philosopher is Rivka Weinberg, who did an AMA here on /r/philosophy last year, available here. There are also links to some of her work in the AMA blurb.

The original question I answered was to explain why Eugenics is wrong, to which I provided an answer by demonstration citing the worst case yet of Eugenics actually being implemented. But, as your condescending attitude tells me you will press the point I will shift to your clearly moved goal posts.

Eugenic abortion sets a precedent. It allows us to kill something with Human DNA because it is easier than treating. You may say "so what, a fetus isn't a person and we've drawn a clear line at birth so there is no risk." The problem is people do use this as justification for post natal intervention. In the Netherlands there is a legal concept known as "the Groningen Protocol" wherein doctors are not prosecuted for non-voluntary euthanasia of children with extreme conditions (with parental permission of course) this goes beyond the per birth = fetus, post birth = human with all the associated rights. But you will say "those are just extreme cases, no one is advocating going further"

This again establishes precedent. One of the most respected ethicists and philosophers of our time, Peter Singer, openly advocates allowing parents to terminate children up to a certain age if their condition would be troublesome. This is a very dangerous path to take.

Now before you shout slippery slope, I might remind you those are valid arguments if you are actively skiing. Now, how does this relate to the holocaust? The final solution did not spring up in 1942 ex nihilo. It was the final culmination of the growing acceptance of Eugenics in the U.S. and Europe. Action T4 called on parents to submit their children for sterilisation and euthanasia. Buck v. Bell which upheld the constitutionality of state sterilisation programs without medical approval, was cited by Nazi doctors at Nuremberg. It would have protected most of them too if they were on U.S. soil.

My point is that eugenics starts off in ways where you wouldn't expect it to go full holocaust, but that where it went last time, all it takes is a few determined individuals and precedent to make sure the rest of the populace is okay and you gave a recipe for genocide. This is why I oppose eugenics. The burden of proof is on eugenicist to prove they won't fuck up again.

Check out David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been . Similar enough to be of interest I am sure.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

Greatest book about parenting, your life will never be the same again.

If you're interested in pursuing these ideas further, you might like the works of David Benatar and Arthur Schopenhauer.

>Since I LOVE the son I don't have, I would never do something like that to him.

Do I have a book for you! David Benatar "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence."

The article is entirely reasonable - it's basically what Peter Singer outlined in rethinking life and death, which is a must read.

Since when we grant person-hood and rights is entirely arbitrary, we should arbitrarily agree on an age that the infant becomes a person with full rights - say a week after birth.

I have three: The Stranger made me stop believing in moral absolutes, Letter to a Christian Nation made me an atheist, and The Sexual Politics of Meat was the beginning of me going vegan.

I was looking at Better Never to Have Been and No Logo, and have been curious about socialism, anarchism, and the straight edge philosophy, and I'd like to consume any books that would challenge my current beliefs or ask me to radically change who I am.

> Not quite and I want to be careful here. Animal abuse is an unjust action toward an animal. A human being, though he has dominion over an animal would still be wrong to abuse it. However, using an animal for his own legitimate purpose is not abuse (e.g., clothing, travel, nutrition, companionship, etc.) God, as the creator over these beings, has complete authority. God cannot abuse His own creation. To do so would mean that He is not its creator. Abuse is to use in a way contrary to which it was intended. God is the intender.

I disagree on multiple points here and think you'd run afoul in multiple places if you were to present definitions for the words with contentious definitions employed.

>Animal abuse is an unjust action toward an animal.

Without a meaningful definition of the word just (or unjust), this sentence has no content. Justice is not simply whatever something's creator deems to be, and hasn't been since at least the Socratic era.

>A human being, though he has dominion over an animal would still be wrong to abuse it. However, using an animal for his own legitimate purpose is not abuse (e.g., clothing, travel, nutrition, companionship, etc.)

'Legitimate purpose' again requires a definition because you are using it in a context where the meaning of that phrase is what the rest of the statement is contingent upon. Your definition of 'legitimate purpose' is not one that would be agreed by people who do not share your presuppositions. I wouldn't even grant that clothing or nutrition would be appropriate in that list and that's not even the contentious presupposition.

>if you assume that Jesus is God, has power over demons, knows what is best for people, and that this act was in furtherance of what is best for people, then He is not manipulating anyone.

I disagree, even if you assume all that you've stated the manipulation remains you've just deemed it a just manipulation. You are still putting people through harm regardless of what their will is so that Yaweh might arrive at his desired end. I'd also caution that you can justify a hell of a lot if you operate following this sort of logic where you grant huge swaths of assumptions.

>God, as the creator over these beings, has complete authority. God cannot abuse His own creation. To do so would mean that He is not its creator. Abuse is to use in a way contrary to which it was intended. God is the intender.

Ah, and this is the pivotal point of disagreement. No, an agent does not have unlimited authority over anything it creates. This is dangerous, ancient thinking that has been tossed aside in every aspect of human life aside from supernatural consideration.

Even when it comes to children, we recognize that they have rights relative to their agency. Prior to meeting the standards of personhood (of which a crucial one is agency) a human life lacks almost all of the rights it ultimately will acquire as it matures and grows its agency. As agency increases, the parent / creator's control and 'dominion' over the creation wanes.

We're set to also run up against this problem in a very drastic manner as a species soon(ish) when we get AI to a point where it more accurately resembles consciousness.

Right now, AI is basically just a complex command set. If condition X or Y is met, perform task A. It's complicated by algorithms, conditions that change over time, and command sets that are structured into complex hierarchy but currently there's not a Will that exists anywhere in this and thus no true agency, just an extension of their human creator no meaningfully different from a set of dominos.

Maybe Humans never get our creations to a point in which something reasonably resembling will/agency exists. However, if we do Humans won't be fully justified in doing whatever we desire to our creations because our creations will have agency and agency must be recognized as a requisite of Rights.

So, just as Humans would not be justified in doing whatever they desired to a conscious robot or their child, a human-creator would also not be justified in all circumstance in their interactions with humans. There are consequences to action and very serious consequences to creation. David Benatar wrote a great short book on this awhile back called Better Never to Have Been though it was more geared towards the ethics of procreation than our larger topic of conversation. Were we as a species to have a creator that creator would have strong limits on what they were justified in doing. Justice is predicated on harm, before something (or someone) exists it cannot be harmed. Once it has been conjured into existence harm is possible and if harm is done to something with agency that harm requires justification (or it is not just).

Un bouquin anti-nataliste qui est pas trop mal si t'as le courage. Rien que le titre donne bien le ton.

I read Better Never to Have Been (which is not pro-suicide but rather anti-natal, but comes across as bleak if you haven't encountered the argument before) and immediately afterward picked up Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow. It was the perfect emotional counterpoint, if not a perfect logical one (to Benatar's argument at least).

>Hoping for a car to run you over is not going to help you or your family.

No it wont help my family; they'd hate to have to pay my half of the rent.
but it would help me. I bought this book the other day.

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

and its all making a lot of sense to me know. it's like its all coming together for the first time in my life.

Thomas Ligotti - The Conspiracy Against the Human Race is probably the one I can recommend the most.

There's also Better Never to Have Been - David Benatar.

If you think one of them is too expensive tell me.

You could also Studies in Pessimism - Arthur Schopenhauer.

At last I can recommend this article from Richard Dawkins going into why nature pretty much sucks.

A book you might be interested in: Better to Never Have Been

First, join VHEMT (wiki because website is down) and then read this book.

It seems that Buddhism and Hinduism have the same basis.
I know that the goal in Hinduism is to escape the cycle as well.
That's why people want to die in Varanasi.

I share your POV.
There is a great book to this topic - Better never to have been: The harm of coming into existence by David Benatar
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

If you want to research the different stances yourself, you can look up anti-natalism in general. Personally, I subscribe to David Benatar's idea (taken from summary of this [book] (http://smile.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265/ref=smi_ge_rl_btns4_setch?_encoding=UTF8&%252AVersion%252A=1&%252Aentries%252A=0&%3Fie=UTF8&pldnNew=1)):

>David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived.

"Better to never have been" is something of a slogan for antinatalism ;)

If you haven't already read it,
'Better Never to Have Been' by David Benatar,
is a very thought provoking book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

Thank you /u/jamietwells. Here are a couple of links you might find interesting (one of which I've posted elsewhere in this thread):

• Forced Life and its Discontents: An Interview with Sister Y
  
  
• Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

David Benatar is pretty well known for explicitly arguing that having children is unethical (see his *Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence)

Peter Singer is phenomenal for his breadth of topics, he does discuss the ethics of overpopulation and consumption fairly regularly (see this little speech or his book The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty).

Other than that, as TychoCelchuuu suggests, the SEP is a good place to start.

/r/Antinatalism's Wiki presents the basic arguments better than I can. But reading https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265 may be obligatory for more details.

>From a purely rational perspective, existence is all that you really have. A mind that can perceive suffering is still a mind, and infinitely more valuable than a rock. It would definitely be irrational for me to choose to simply stop existing.

If you actually think that it would be worth it to spend all eternity having a power drill driven into your skull simply so that you could exist, we have nothing more to discuss. Your view of rationality, or existence, or something is apparently so diametrically opposed to mine that we would simply be talking past each other. We'll have to agree to disagree.

By the way, you should check out antinatalism, particularly David Benatar's book Better Never to Have Been. It would probably make your head explode.

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Here ya go: http://www.amazon.ca/Doing-Right-Practical-Trainees-Physicians/dp/0195428412

Better Never to Have Been by David Benatar

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333157158&sr=8-1

Read a book?

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Biomedical-Ethics-Beauchamp/dp/0199924589

https://www.amazon.com/American-Sickness-Healthcare-Became-Business/dp/1594206759/ref=sr_1_1?crid=12GOKZ3DTRX3W&keywords=an+american+sickness+by+elisabeth+rosenthal&qid=1550980133&s=books&sprefix=an+american+sic%2Cstripbooks%2C151&sr=1-1

>Nobody's saying "we need more abortions! Abortions are great!"

Well actually…

This would just reinforce the idea that some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

This book.

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

http://uglatto.com/David_Benatar_-_Better_Never_to_Have_Been.pdf

Your comment reminded me of this book. I haven't read it yet, but it's on my list.

You might find this book interesting: https://www.amazon.ca/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

Arguably

This book is for you.

Here is the mobile version of your link

Believe it or not, there is a fairly well-defended philosophical thesis somewhat similar to your defense of anti-natalism, although the position it takes is possibly even more extreme.

The short version is: Failing to bring a person into existence means that they do not experience certain benefits, but a person who is not brought into existence cannot be said to be deprived of such benefits. However, a person who is brought into existence experiences serious harms that otherwise would not have befallen them at all. Thus, even if beneficial experiences outweigh harmful ones in the end (as you concede they might), the harm incurred in bringing someone into existence is always greater.

The name of the book is Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence by David Benatar.

edit, since I've apparently violated rule 1: Why would consent be important? In our society, we regularly entrust legal guardians with the power to give consent on behalf of family members or loved ones who cannot legally consent.

>be born without consent

required reading for depressedcels

I highly recommend you actually educate yourself about what you are arguing against rather than form a facade of your opponents argument. This book is an excellent source of information about antinatalism. Learn what you are arguing against if you want to form a good argument.

> your determination to catapult this question I had into a debate … Instead of hopping on to assume the worst about mothers who may have a question to ask another

I don't want to catapult this into a debate. I was just interested in the answer to my question. And I don't know why you think I assume the worst, far from it. I'm just wondering why you'd not be interested in a dad's perspective on this question. I don't think it's similar to asking about "how come I have erectile dysfunction?" - and even so, there are plenty of female sexologists that have a 100x better answer than any random dude.

> I do feel asking other mothers about their experiences was warranted due to the hormonal aspects involved

Thanks, I can get that, I guess that could make it more likely for women/moms while men/dads can have the same experience. And...you know, that answer was basically all I was wondering about. Other people have tried to turn this into a debate.

Have you heard of David Benatar's "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence", I also found it after the fact. Perhaps you might find that interesting.

>So ethically, we could abort every foetus on the grounds that they would have no frame of reference to object to it? It would certainly ensure nobody had to suffer.

That makes sense to me.

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

Yup, I can't disagree with you. I've thought this way for a long time. Others might disagree, but there are other people out there who think this. I came across a whole book about it.

The strongest influence on anti-natalism in modern times is a book published in 2006, written by a Cape Town professor of philosophy David Benatar. He explicitly names his philosophy as antinatalism. Its title is:

Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence: https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

You might enjoy this book, the author doesn't suggest we all commit suicide, but I think the topic might be right up your alley. "Better to Never Have Been - The Harm of Coming Into Existence" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199549265/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_13?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

I'm curious how it will compare to David Benatar's "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence". This appears to tackle another important issue for me: the right to die. I'll have to give this a read.

David Benetar would argue the exact opposite and makes a very thorough case for it (from a materialist world viewpoint).

I think the (difficult) discussion about fetal sentience is mostly besides the point. Even if one is to subscribe to sentience as a sufficient criterion for basic rights’ attribution, most meaningful theories would still maintain, that rights can be overridden by other rights in certain circumstances, particularly if one rights-holder poses a threat to another. Arguably the situation of pregnancy could be understood as such a scenario thus rendering abortions per se as permissible -- even if fetuses had full basic rights qua sentience.

As of the "right to die"-discussions, I never really got the point of them. There might be some obligations that one has towards their community, that are frustrated if someone commits (assisted) suicide, but how well could one live up to these obligations anyways, if one has formed an honest and reflected wish to die?

And I think Singer’s not helpful to further a discussion about rights, because he’s not really interested in rights.

Also one of the more neglected questions, about reproductive ethics is the one raised by David Benatar: Couldn’t coming into existence be a harm to the one who does? You might think this is true, if and only if misanthropy is true, but his argument for the propostion that it’s better never to have been is pretty consistent with simultaneously asserting that most human life is actually worth living.

In fact, I'm finding gay marriage preferable to straight marriage :)

I consider conception of children to be an inherently bad thing: each time a new being is born, the general level of suffering in the universe increases. Giving birth is ultimatly an egoistic thing which is armful to the child, which will endure a life dominated by bad experiences and suffering ( for detail about this, you can read http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265 ).

So, in a world where there are a lot of orphans, I see adoption as the best move to make by a couple which want a child: it doesn't increase the number of suffering beings in the world like conception, and is more likely to reduce the suffering of a child which is currently living in an orphanage.

Of course, my introductory statement was a little bit trollish. There are means for gay couples to conceive, or make conceive for them, which I find immoral. In fact the move I find the most moral is the straight couple which choose to not conceive at all, but to adopt.

One of the most interesting stories is of Frances Oldham Kelsey who fought against bad practices in the pharmaceutical industry such as raspberry flavored antifreeze in a children's drug.

> What's interesting to me is that you came to that conclusion and read it as a reason for nation wide pro choice policy by default, while I read it as an argument for federalism and allowing states to go their own way on it.

While I understand this argument, my point is that making abortion illegal runs counter to precedent regarding bodily autonomy. When the ethics aren't clear and the population is divided, the government always errs on the side of non-action. This is why even though vaccines are consistently safer and more advantageous than the diseases they prevent, and even though herd immunity is important to the immuno-compromised, we do not have laws mandating vaccinations, and if one were to be made it would likely get struck down at the Federal level. Mandating vaccines would require the government to actively force the population to get vaccinated. Our legal precedent is to prefer simply allowing people to choose.

In the case of abortion, making it illegal is much more difficult in that it requires policing women until they give birth and ensuring their pregnancies ended legally. Leaving abortion legal allows citizens to decide on the ethics personally and prevents the government from having to mandate anything.

It's worth pointing out that in both of these cases states can still regulate how these things are handled. There are still regulations on how vaccines are created and administered and restrictions are still allowed on how abortions are provided. The burden is merely shifted toward ensuring that the state cannot make them de facto illegal, as that would violate the spirit of the federal decision.

Regarding the ethics of abortion, I can't recommend this book enough. If you want to dive right into the ethics, start with Chapter 3. It gives a very broad overview of all the modern ethical views on abortion and how the discussion has developed in each of them. The most famous one is the argument stemming from an essay by Judith Jarvis Thompson in 1973.

J'imagine que tu parles de cet extrait là. En l’occurrence Caron tient le propos inverse qui est que toutes les vies se valent.

Les propos sont attribués au philosophe Peter Singer, et c'est une réduction rapide et grossière de son livre Should the Baby Live?: The Problem of Handicapped Infants (Studies in Bioethics).

edit: typo

Your post reminded me of this book which examines how there is more bad-ness in life than good-ness and how life is full of pain, illness, suffering and death. While there are lovely sunsets m, kisses with cute girls and various other ‘good’ things...the list is much smaller than the list of bad things.
Here is another great book. Emil (who was a fantastic modern day philosopher) examines the issues with being born, how it’s always too late for suicide and takes a sideways look at the world.

I happen to think that Dr. Benatar is correct in his views on reproduction.

See:

• No Life Is Good
  
• Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
  
  

Better Never to have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence by David Benetar

> No need to worry about hypothetical people who never existed.

While I admit that this seems intuitive, this very point is hotly debated among philosophers. On one side is this, and you can easily google responses to that book that argue the other side, if you feel so inclined.

On existence:
One of the premisses for Harris' argument is that existence is preferable to non-existence. The opposite view, that non-existence is preferable in all cases (even though this seems counter intuitive at first glance) is debated at great length in philosophy.

In David Benatar's book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, for instance, he argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm, regardless of the feelings of the existing being once brought into existence. A consequence of this view, is that death in itself is a "positive state" compared to existence.

From Amazon reviews:
> His argument rests on an intuitive asymmetry between the 'good' that is the 'absence of pain', and the 'not bad(ness)' (or neutralness) that is the 'absence of pleasure'. His argument also turns on the distinction between two ways of talking about 'a life worth living'. We can (and ought to) separate our ideas on 'a life worth starting' from 'a life worth continuing'. This is very important. Where as some lives may be worth continuing (he agrees most are) NO life is worth starting. If i come down with a painful condition i may consider my life to still be worth continuing. However if i am faced with the choice whether to create a being who has such a condition it is As all life contains guaranteed harm the interests of a conceivable person are best served by not creating them.His argument rests on an intuitive asymmetry between the 'good' that is the 'absence of pain', and the 'not bad(ness)' (or neutralness) that is the 'absence of pleasure'. His argument also turns on the distinction between two ways of talking about 'a life worth living'. We can (and ought to) separate our ideas on 'a life worth starting' from 'a life worth continuing'. This is very important. Where as some lives may be worth continuing (he agrees most are) NO life is worth starting. If i come down with a painful condition i may consider my life to still be worth continuing. However if i am faced with the choice whether to create a being who has such a condition it is As all life contains guaranteed harm the interests of a conceivable person are best served by not creating them."

On suffering:
A theist's best response to Harris' argument is that we do not know the full scope of things, and sometimes suffering is necessary to allow for good, like a doctor prescribing bad tasting medicine.

Let's assume it is the the case that God offers eternal happiness after we die. You then live in this superorgasmic state for 90 million years. Then a reporter ask you how bad the stuff that happened to you on earth was in the full scope of things.

Even in a case where you were tortured for all your life on earth, the suffering on earth will seem like something equivalent to you looking back now and remembering the suffering you experienced when you fell playing basketball as a kid. If you feel you have a good life now, was the suffering you felt that day in the basketball court worth it?

For some theists the time scope is eternity, so suffering on earth is completely insignificant.

If the human species were going to die out for lack of children, one might argue that reproduction is a duty, either because preserving species is important or because preserving humanity specifically is important. Obviously we're not in that situation and because of that I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that procreation is a duty. Most talk about procreation in philosophy is about the right of people to be parents if they desire to and whether having kids is always wrong because it is better never to have been born.

Since some people can't even have kids for biological reasons, and since others are not in a position to easily raise their kids, it would be weird for philosophers to say that we have to have kids even if we don't want to: some people can't even have kids if they want to! I can't think of any reasons that anyone would be required to have kids against their will.

I haven't read it, but a recent book on this subject is Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence by David Benatar.

Notre Dame Philosophical Review has a review of it here.

This book by David Benatar provides the philosophical base for your perspective. It solidified my thoughts that life is a scam.

Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

Yes. Christian Scientists follow the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy, who didn't believe in bacteria because of Jesus. Their so-called "practitioners" are trained for a whole two weeks. But not in medicine. In Prayer. A lot of the ill congregants die painful and horrible deaths from easily treatable illnesses. I know of an 11-year-old girl who died from diabetes.

Dr. Paul Offit has written an excellent book on the subject of faith healing called Bad Faith: When Religious Belief Undermines Modern Medicine

It's an eye-opening read.

Most of our understanding of freezing and hypothermia comes from experiments carried out by the Nazi Dr Sigmund Rascher.

There were a lot of other medical experiments on prisoners including bone and nerve transplants without anaesthesia and treating infections combat wounds... that they'd inflict first, of course. Wiki

The Abuse Of Man (Amazon) is an awful and interesting read.

I wouldn't tell her parents they made an immoral choice because I have a heart, but in my opinion, it's always morally questionable to have children.

20,000 children starve to death each day. Is it moral that people continue to have children despite such abominations?

Here's a book that espouses my beliefs:

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

No, /u/Xenjael is saying that even though they are brain dead, "brain death" is not plain old death. Doctors themselves will often speak of these patients in such terms as "as good as dead" or "practically dead," which is really another way of saying they are alive.

The traditional criterion for when death has definitely occurred is when the whole body has begun to rot. Peter Singer provides a useful discussion in his book Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics of how the "brain death" definition was developed in the 60s in response to the demand of doctors for fresh, healthy organs.

David Benetar wrote a book called: http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265/ref=pd_ybh_1
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

1. it is wrong to bring someone into the world if that is going to cause that person too 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 an immensely excruciating pain.
   
   He, then, argues that:
   
   
2. All lives, even the best ones are very bad. So you know, for sure, that by bringing someone to life, that person is going to suffer so much pain. Far more than pleasure.
   
   
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.

In 2001 Hoffmann-La Roche's drug Accutane was selling in its billions worldwide as a treatment for acne. For those who suffered from extreme scarring acne, it was something of a miraculous treatment, however evidence started to mount that for others it was a death sentence. Over the next few years it was estimated that between 300 and 3,000 young people being prescribed Accutane since its launch had committed suicide or killed others. In 2001 the father of young man in Ireland who had committed suicide approached Dr. Doug Bremner as Professor of Psychiatry & Radiology at Emory University to see if he could find a causal link between the drug and depression. His findings were that the drug did have an effect on the brain likely to cause acute depression in some patients, which was not surprising as it is a molecular cousin of Vitamin A which is known to cause depression in excessive quantities. One might think that Hoffmann-La Roche would have welcomed these findings. After all, no-one was doubting that Accutane was an extremely effective remedy in many cases, it was just that it appeared to have lethal side-effects in others. You might like to think again on that one. 'The Goose That Laid The Golden Egg' is the account of what Hoffmann-La Roche did next, which was to prosecute a determined, energetic and vindictive campaign against Dr. Bremner designed to suppress his findings and destroy his career and livelihood. Nonetheless, Dr. Bremner persisted and Hoffmann La-Roche have since withdrawn Accutane from the US market, not only for its potentially depressive effects, but also for the likelihood of its causing birth defects and stunting growth. From the pen of the author of 'Before You Take That Pill: Why the Drug Industry May Be Bad for Your Health: Risks and Side Effects You Won't Find on the Label of Commonly Prescribed Drugs, Vitamins, and Supplements', this is a truly riveting and emotional read detailing just what it costs to take on the full might of one of the largest corporations in the world when you have never claimed to be a saint and have no desire to become a martyr.

I have a suggestion.

[Rethinking Life & Death] (http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0312144016) from Peter Singer . The first link takes you to amazon.com, where you can read some of the book to get a feel for whether you think it will be of interest. The second link takes you to the wikipedia entry on Singer.

This book does not focus on the death penalty, but does focus on other cases involving killing (euthanasia, abortion), and on the question of whether life really is sacred. I have my copy in hand (apparently I bought it in 1995, according to my habit of writing name and date on the inside cover). It really is a nice read.

Edit: Leafing through the book, I have just found this bombshell:

>But, in the case of infanticide, it is our culture that has something to learn from others, especially now that we, like them, are in a situation where we must limit family size...for reasons we have already discussed, in regarding a newborn infant as not having the same right to life as a person, the cultures that practiced infanticide were on solid ground. (p. 215)

So if you think that killing is wrong, then I am sure that you will think killing newborn infants is horrific. The fun thing is trying to find out why Singer thinks this, and where you think he goes wrong. If you do that, then you will be doing philosophy.

It is a punishment, it is punishable by law if you don't take care of the child. Having to deal with a person you don't want to marry for 18 years because of a child is a punishment. Dealing with a child you never wanted for 18 years is a punishment. Knowing that you brought a child into the world that you cannot adequately care for is a punishment.

It is also a punishment to the kid. My parents can't afford me, I'm a burden on my parents. My parents don't love me, because I was an accident. My parents are not married, other kids call me a bastard.

The kids are the ones punished the most.

you should read "better never to have been" by David Benatar
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

The idea that life is "inherently good" is bullshit. I think bringing any child into this world is a sin, because you cannot prevent bad things from happening to them. Even if you are well off and love your partner, bad things will happen to your child. They will feel pain, they will suffer at some point, and they will know loss. The child never asked to be brought into this world, you forced them into this world without consent.