Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Is human existence worth its consequent harm?L. Doyal - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (10):573-576.
    Benatar argues that it is better never to have been born because of the harms always associated with human existence. Non-existence entails no harm, along with no experience of the absence of any benefits that existence might offer. Therefore, he maintains that procreation is morally irresponsible, along with the use of reproductive technology to have children. Women should seek termination if they become pregnant and it would be better for potential future generations if humans become extinct as soon as humanely (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Grim news from the original position: a reply to Professor Doyal.D. Benatar - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (10):577-577.
    In his review of my book, Better never to have been, Len Doyal suggests, contrary to my view, that rational beings in the original position might prefer coming into existence to the alternative of never existing, if their lives were to include enough good and not too much bad. I argue, in response, that Professor Doyal fails to make his case.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Grim news for an unoriginal position: a reply to Seth Baum.D. Benatar - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):328-329.
    Seth Baum suggests that my claim that it is better never to come into existence “can readily be rejected not just out of reflexive distaste for the claim but also out of sound ethical reasoning”. In my reply, I argue that Mr Baum fails to state accurately what my arguments are, and then attempts to refute them by association with other views that he dismisses perfunctorily. Where he does actually engage in my views, his response is effectively merely to assert (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Better to exist: a reply to Benatar.S. D. Baum - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (12):875-876.
    A recent exchange on Benatar’s book Better never to have been between Doyal and Benatar discusses Benatar’s bold claim that people should not be brought into existence. Here, I expand the discussion of original position that the exchange focused on. I also discuss the asymmetries, between benefit and harm and between existence and non-existence, upon which Benatar’s bold claim rests. In both discussions, I show how Benatar’s bold claim can be rejected.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.David Benatar - 2009 - Human Studies 32 (1):101-108.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   149 citations  
  • Better never to have been: the harm of coming into existence.David Benatar - 2006 - New York ;: Oxford University Press.
    Better Never to Have Been argues for a number of related, highly provocative, views: (1) Coming into existence is always a serious harm. (2) It is always wrong to have children. (3) It is wrong not to abort fetuses at the earlier stages of gestation. (4) It would be better if, as a result of there being no new people, humanity became extinct. These views may sound unbelievable--but anyone who reads Benatar will be obliged to take them seriously.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   131 citations  
  • Better never to have been: The harm of coming into existence – David Benatar.Saul Smilansky - 2008 - Philosophical Quarterly 58 (232):569–571.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Review of David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence[REVIEW]Christopher Belshaw - 2007 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2007 (6).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Harming by conceiving: A review of misconceptions and a new analysis. [REVIEW]Carson Strong - 2005 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (5):491 – 516.
    An objection often is raised against the use of reproductive technology to create "nontraditional families," as in ovum donation for postmenopausal women or postmortem artificial insemination. The objection states that conceiving children in such circumstances is harmful to them because of adverse features of these nontraditional families. A similar objection is raised when parents, through negligence or willful disregard of risks, create children with serious genetic diseases or other developmental handicaps. It is claimed that such reproduction harms the children who (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations