DISCUSSION NOTEBENATAR AND THE LOGIC OF BETTERNESSBY BEN BRADLEYJOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHYDISCUSSION NOTE | MARCH 2010
URL: WWW.JESP.ORG
COPYRIGHT © BEN BRADLEY 2010

JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY | DISCUSSION NOTEBENATAR AND THE LOGIC OF BETTERNESSBen Bradley

Benatar and the Logic of Betterness
Ben Bradley

THE PRIMARY ARGUMENT OF DAVID BENATAR’S Better Neverto Have Been is an argument for the claim that coming into existence isalways 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 andevils.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)(2)

The absence of pain in (B) is intrinsically better than the presence of pain in (A).
The presence of pleasure in (A) is not intrinsically better than the absence ofpleasure 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 havechildren.
1 Here and throughout I will formulate the arguments in terms of value simpliciter rather thanvalue for a subject, or well-being. How Benatar intends his arguments to be understood isunclear; his most official-looking formulations of the arguments do not appeal to value for asubject, but he does say things like this: the judgment that the absence of pain is good “ismade with reference to the (potential) interests of a person who either does or does not exist… if there is any (obviously loose) sense in which the absence of pain is good for the person
who could have existed but does not exist, this is it” (2006: 30-31). So it appears he intends
to be talking, in some loose sense, about personal well-being rather than value simpliciter (assuming he does, in fact, think there is a loose sense in which the absence of pain is good forthe person who does not exist). I formulate the arguments in terms of value simpliciter for
simplicity’s sake, and to avoid any strangeness involved in talking about value for people
who never exist. I take it that this does not, by itself, improve the strength of my arguments.
The logic of intrinsic value and the logic of intrinsic-value-for-a-person surely share crucialfeatures, such that the relevant claims about the logic of intrinsic value will seem equallyplausible when considered as claims about the logic of intrinsic-value-for-a-person.

JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY | DISCUSSION NOTEBENATAR AND THE LOGIC OF BETTERNESSBen Bradley

The asymmetry between (1) and (2) is supposed to be justified by theexplanatory 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 childwould 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 procreateknowingly 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 nothave 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 pleasureis 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 willshow 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 byappealing to a distinction between positive and negative rights, or some otherimportant 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 ofpleasure is not, then pleasure must be intrinsically better than the absence ofpleasure. 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 recognizethat it is incoherent.
In extant literature on the logic of preference or betterness, there are
two ways to define goodness in terms of betterness. Albert Brogan and G.H.
von Wright endorse the following definition: p is good iff p is better than ~p(Brogan 1919: 98; von Wright 1963: 34; Hansson and Grüne-Yanoff 2009).
Given this definition, if it is good that John experiences some pleasure, thenit is better that John experience some pleasure than not. But this is justanother way of saying that John’s pleasure is better than its absence, contrary
to Benatar’s premise (2).

2

JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY | DISCUSSION NOTEBENATAR AND THE LOGIC OF BETTERNESSBen Bradley

Roderick Chisholm and Ernest Sosa reject the Brogan/von Wright definition in favor of the following: “a state of affairs is good provided it is better
than some state of affairs that is indifferent” (1966: 246). From this definition, Chisholm and Sosa derive the following theorem: (T27) if p is good, andq is not good, then p is better than q (1966: 248; Chisholm 1968: 25). The
conjunction of hedonism and Benatar’s premise (2) is incompatible with thistheorem. Since hedonism is merely an illustrative assumption, we must, on
pain of contradiction, choose between (2) and (T27). So Benatar’s argument
is incompatible with the most promising ways of defining goodness in termsof betterness.
In deriving (T27), Chisholm and Sosa appeal to the following definitionof “same value”: to say that two states have the same intrinsic value is to saythat neither is better than the other (1966: 247; also see Brogan 1919: 97). Itis safe to assume that Benatar thinks that the absence of pleasure is not better
than the presence of pleasure. From this assumption and (2), it follows thatpleasure and the absence of pleasure have the same value. And from the factthat the absence of pleasure is not good, it follows that pleasure is not good
either, contrary to our assumption of hedonism. So (2) again leads to a contradiction. Thus Benatar needs a new definition of “same value.” In fact itseems Benatar will need a new definition for every axiological concept. Hisargument is far more radical than he realizes.2III. Replies
As mentioned above, Benatar makes a distinction between the absence ofpleasure in an existing person and the absence of pleasure in a nonexistentperson. In the case of someone who exists, pleasure is better than its absence; but pleasure in an existing person is not better than the absence ofpleasure in a nonexistent person. Does this distinction help rescue premise(2)? What difference might there be between the absence of pleasure in anexisting person and the absence of pleasure in a nonexistent person? There
are two possible differences, neither of which is of much use to Benatar.
First, we might think that while the absence of pleasure in an existing
person has an intrinsic value of zero, the absence of pleasure in a nonexistentperson has no intrinsic value at all – not even zero. This is suggested by thefollowing remark: “Absent pleasures in Scenario B [in which the person never exists], by contrast, are not neutral states of some person. They are nostates of a person at all” (2006: 41). Suppose a couple is contemplating conceiving a child, who would be named John. Let J1 be the state of affairs consisting of John not existing and not getting any pleasure. Suppose J1 has noNote that the objection does not hinge on the claim (endorsed in Brogan 1919) that betterness is fundamental and goodness is derivative. It depends only on the claim that there issome necessary connection between the two.

23

JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY | DISCUSSION NOTEBENATAR AND THE LOGIC OF BETTERNESSBen Bradley

intrinsic value at all, whether positive, negative or neutral. This is compatiblewith (2), since the betterness relation holds only between states that havesome positive, negative or neutral value. But now consider J2: that John does
not exist and does not get any pain. Does J2 have some positive, negative orneutral value? What reason could there be for saying that J1 does not have
any intrinsic value but J2 does? If, as Benatar says, the reason that absent
pleasures in a nonexistent person do not have neutral value is that the absent
pleasure is not a state of any person, absent pains in a nonexistent person
must also fail to have neutral value. If J2 has no intrinsic value, then Benatar’s (1) is false. So the claim that absent pleasures in nonexistent people haveno intrinsic value is unhelpful to Benatar’s claim of asymmetry.
Second, we might try to find a vulnerability in Chisholm and Sosa’s logicof betterness. Recall that according to Chisholm and Sosa, two states havethe same value if and only if neither is better than the other. This definition
allowed us to derive contradictions from (2). But it is sometimes argued that
there are cases in which x is not better than y, y is not better than x, and x
and y are not equal in value; they have incomparable values (see Chang 1997).
Benatar does not discuss incomparability, which suggests he does not intend
his argument to rest on it. Nevertheless, we should consider whether an appeal to incomparability could rescue his view. The imagined reply goes asfollows: when Benatar says, in (2), that pleasure is not better than the absenceof pleasure, he is not committed to saying that it is worse or equal in value;rather, pleasure and its absence have incomparable values.
But several roadblocks emerge for Benatar. (a) As before, we must wonder why the presence of pain is comparable in value with the absence of painin the nonexistent (per (1)) but pleasure and its absence in the nonexistent
are not comparable. There seems to be no reason to say this, except that it isrequired to maintain Benatar’s asymmetry. (b) It is hard to see in what distinct way the absence of pleasure has value at all; is there a distinct scale ofvalue on which the values of absences can be weighed? This seems implausible, and there is no evidence Benatar believes in any such thing. (c) Suppose
absences are comparable with each other, so that the absence of pleasure in
the nonexistent is comparable in value with the absence of pain in the nonexistent. Then assuming (1), and assuming that existing pleasures and pains
are comparable in value, transitivity yields comparability between pleasure
and the absence of pleasure in the nonexistent, contrary to (2).3
Of course, it is possible that both the Chisholm/Sosa and Brogan/vonWright definitions of goodness in terms of betterness are mistaken. Nodoubt Benatar will reject them, since they lead to contradictions when combined with his own premises! And they seem to need refinement if they are
to allow for incomparabilities. But it is difficult to see how any plausible reviBroome takes transitivity to be a “principle of logic” (1997: 68). It seems safe to assume
Benatar accepts transitivity, since he does not use a denial of transitivity to avoid the repugnant conclusion (Benatar 2006: 168-82).

34

JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY | DISCUSSION NOTEBENATAR AND THE LOGIC OF BETTERNESSBen Bradleysions to those definitions will yield Benatar’s asymmetry claim. In any case,Benatar cannot merely reject the definitions and theorems on offer; he must
either put something in their place, or tell us what, in the absence of suchdefinitions, justifies inferences from claims about goodness and badness toclaims about betterness and preferability. Until such time, it seems reasonable
to conclude that existing is better in one way, but worse in another, than notexisting. Thus, as long as the amount of intrinsic goodness in a life outweighs
the amount of intrinsic badness, the life is worth starting. Existing is not always harmful.4
Ben Bradley
Syracuse University
Department of Philosophy
wbradley@syr.edu
References
Benatar, D. 2006. Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brogan, A. 1919. “The Fundamental Value Universal.” The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology andScientific Methods 16: 96-104.
Broome, J. 1997. “Is Incommensurability Vagueness?” In Incommensurability, Incomparability,and Practical Reason, ed. Chang, 67-89.
Chang, R. (ed.) 1997. Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Chisholm, R. 1968. “The Defeat of Good and Evil.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American
Philosophical Association 42 (1968): 21-38.
Chisholm, R. and Sosa, E. 1966. “On the Logic of ‘Intrinsically Better.’” American Philosophical Quarterly 3: 244-9.
Doyal, L. 2007. “Is Human Existence Worth Its Consequent Harm?” Journal of Medical Ethics
33: 573-6.
Hansson, S. and Grüne-Yanoff, T. 2009. “Preferences.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Spring2009Edition),EdwardN.
Zalta (ed.),http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/preferences/.
Harman, E. 2009. “Critical Study: David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been.” Nous 43: 776-85.
Kaposy, C. 2009. “Coming Into Existence: the Good, the Bad, and the Indifferent.” HumanStudies 32: 101-8.
McMahan, J. 2009. “Asymmetries in the Morality of Causing People to Exist.” In Harming
Future Persons, ed. Roberts and Wasserman, 49-68.
Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Persson, I. 2009. “Rights and the Asymmetry Between Creating Good and Bad Lives.” InHarming Future Persons, ed. Roberts and Wasserman, 29-47.
Roberts, M and Wasserman, D. 2009. Harming Future Persons. Springer.
von Wright, G.H. 1963. The Logic of Preference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

4 Thanks to Paul Prescott, an anonymous referee for this journal and the audience at theDeCamp Bioethics Seminar at Princeton University, especially David Benatar, for helpfulcomments.

5