At the New York Times blog, Peter Singer favorably discusses a book that I haven’t read–Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence–that illuminates the profound danger of Singer’s utilitarian philosophy and the growing nihilism among the intellectual set. From Singer’s post:
Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents?
For most people contemplating reproduction, those are the dominant questions. Some may also think about the desirability of adding to the strain that the nearly seven billion people already here are putting on our planet’s environment. But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself. Most of those who consider that question probably do so because they have some reason to fear that the child’s life would be especially difficult — for example, if they have a family history of a devastating illness, physical or mental, that cannot yet be detected prenatally.
That’s pretty simplistic. People don’t sit back and coolly make utilitarian decisions. We are more vibrant than that, for good and ill, more messy. Moreover, people who don’t want children that will experience difficulties often make that decision because of the problems it will create in their own lives, a value system promoted by the popular culture–hence the ubiquitous practice of eugenic abortion, and in the Netherlands, infanticide–both of which practices are supported enthusiastically by Singer. Reducing childbearing to crass utilitarian measurements and projections of suffering, thus, leads to justifying killing as an answer thereto, illustrating the oppression unleashed by the avoid suffering at all costs attitudes so prevalent today.
Singer takes this mindset to the next logical step, sympathizing with the view that we should become extinct as a way of avoiding suffering:
The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself. Schopenhauer’s pessimism has had few defenders over the past two centuries, but one has recently emerged, in the South African philosopher David Benatar, author of a fine book with an arresting title: “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” One of Benatar’s arguments trades on something like the asymmetry noted earlier. To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her. Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.
Erin Schell Benatar also argues that human lives are, in general, much less good than we think they are. We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism. This illusion may have evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, but it is an illusion nonetheless. If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.
This is nihilism on stilts and it is polluting the West’s self confidence and belief in universal human equality like the BP oil well is polluting the Caribbean. Only the resulting mess isn’t measured in polluted beaches and dead birds, but existential despair that destroys human lives.
After seeming to embrace the concept of human extinction, Singer takes a step back:
I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?
We have to “justify” continuing the species? Good grief. Under the influence of anti-human advocates like Peter Singer, we have gone in the West from seeking to “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity,” to seriously questioning whether there should be any posterity at all. This is not healthy. But it is the natural consequence of rejecting human exceptionalism.
June 7th, 2010 | 12:56 pm
[...] you are interested, I have a more detailed analysis over at Secondhand Smoke. Comments [...]
June 7th, 2010 | 1:00 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stand In The Gap, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/06/07/peter-singer-is-human-extinction-an-acceptable-way-to-avoid-suffering/ [...]
June 7th, 2010 | 1:33 pm
Psycho
June 7th, 2010 | 2:51 pm
Insane. I bet if he had ever really suffered, he wouldn’t feel that way.
June 7th, 2010 | 5:38 pm
Is this really a problem? Regardless of what Singer thinks and says, those who want children will continue to have them, and those who don’t want them (for whatever reason) won’t. Do we have some kind of obligation to “be fruitful and multiply?”
June 7th, 2010 | 6:24 pm
On the contrary, it seems that Singer presupposes ‘human exceptionalism’.
Humans are supposedly conscious and do philosophy and ethics. Why should they just reproduce and pass on their genes like a banana or a dog? Why fall unreflectively into what may be just an evolutionary trap?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Overseas: To the contrary: He explicitly denies it and has chastised me for its defense. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/05/18/singer-versus-smith-on-rights-for-robots-and-human-exceptionalism/
June 7th, 2010 | 7:11 pm
When are people going to realize that he says much of what he does to be provocative and getting attention…both positive and negative? His ultimate and actual conclusions almost never match his rhetoric.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 7th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Charlie: He is not just a provocateur. He is an activist and has an agenda to destroy human exceptionalism and replace it with a “quality of life” ethic in which each individual–human or animal–is given equal consideration and in conflicts, the individual with the highest cognitive capacity prevails.
June 7th, 2010 | 7:14 pm
Un-Be-Leave-A-Bull.
And HistoryWriter, yeah, it is a problem. Two reasons:
1. “it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization” is not a statement of asking each individual to sterilize themselves. It’s asking the governments of the world to forcibly sterilize their citizens. If people like this get their way, they will force it on the rest of us.
2. It leads people, particularly disabled or suffering people, into despair. Instead of telling them that they can overcome and they can have a wonderful life, they tell them, you’re life is going to suck. You might as well be dead.
How can this NOT be a problem?
June 7th, 2010 | 9:05 pm
It just illustrates why I learned a long ago to listen to the great doers, and ignore the “great thinkers.” I honestly have a hard time figuring out why people are so impressed with Singer. It’s great to have a way with words, and to challenge orthodoxy, but sooner or later you have to show your words carry over to the real world. I just don’t see that with him. It’s just word games and intellectual one-upmanship.
June 7th, 2010 | 10:35 pm
These people who think like this should be willing to commit suicide. But they won’t. It’s always someone else who has to die, not them. When these people are willing to put theior money where their mouth is, then I’ll pay attention to them.
June 8th, 2010 | 7:12 am
Good I used quotes round ‘human exceptionalism’ then!
Humans have invented contraceptives and IVF techniques. Do humans have a right/obligation to use contraceptives or IVF? Is there anything rational about reproduction? Why would one resort to IVF rather than adopt? I can’t see what’s wrong in principle with a philosopher asking this sort of questions.
June 8th, 2010 | 7:50 am
Wesley…and that makes him special or noteworthy, how? As you point out, this is a growing movement with millions and millions of supporters. But back to my point about his method: he is known for infanticide…but his ultimate argument is actually against infanticide. That is his m.o. to get everyone’s attention…and it’s worked yet again. He definitely DOESN’T think we should exterminate humanity…but in taking the argument seriously, and making it the headline, here we are talking about it on a blog.
Padraig…this guy was the person most responsible for the animal liberation movement. He channels millions of dollars to Oxfam and other charities. His ethics at the Bible in modern-day secular culture in Europe. You can say lots of things about Singer…but one thing you can’t say is that he doesn’t have an effect.
June 8th, 2010 | 8:01 am
[...] Yesterday Wesley Smith and Gene Fant wrote about the latest controversial remarks by ethicist Peter Singer. Because too [...]
June 8th, 2010 | 8:47 am
[...] here, here and here. Categorized under: Uncategorized. Tagged with: Human [...]
June 8th, 2010 | 11:36 am
Is this the best folks can muster by way of a answer to Singer (or, by extension, Benatar)? Can’t anyone manage a response the actual argument?
June 8th, 2010 | 11:42 am
Tagged: http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/06/projection-bias-much.html
June 8th, 2010 | 2:56 pm
Does this really have much to do with human exceptionalism?
So, choosing to not have a child because one thoughtfully concludes – 1) the negatives of life outweigh the positives 2) or there is no evidence of an afterlife or ultimate purpose 3) or the child born has no choice and control over the time and situation he/she is born into 4) the outcome of that child cannot be fully controlled (born with disease, kidnapped, thrust in combat, etc) 5) or we cannot control or predict if that child will be happy and reasonably fulfilled 6) or there are still too many barriers, obstacles, and uknowns to predict a habitable future -
is a consequence of rejecting human exceptionalism?
Really?
Rather, it seems to me it is the process of careful thought and consideration – not acceptance or rejection of human exceptionalism. Many may not agree with the reasons, but at least they are thinking before not breeding.
This isn’t a new idea. Sophocles exposed similar views in Oedipus. People have been breeding since Sophcles. Isn’t it just hysteria to denounce this as a great danger?
Padraig:
Singer is also doer, regardless of one’s opinions of what he says
http://thelifeyoucansave.com/
June 8th, 2010 | 10:33 pm
Nobody’s posted this? It’s the Onion, in praise of cigarettes killing destructive people. It’s appropriate and all that !
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-ecofriendly-cigarettes-kill-destructive-human,17529/
June 9th, 2010 | 2:30 pm
Charlie: “Padraig…this guy was the person most responsible for the animal liberation movement. He channels millions of dollars to Oxfam and other charities. His ethics at the Bible in modern-day secular culture in Europe. You can say lots of things about Singer…but one thing you can’t say is that he doesn’t have an effect.”
Oh, absolutely. I just don’t understand HOW he got his platform in the first place. One theory is that as we moved to concentrated farming, it put people far enough away from food production that many have never faced the harsher aspects of it (habitat destruction, pest and predator control, culling, etc.) so they’re shocked and outraged when they see it. You should have seen it a couple hundred years ago, kids.
Also, with human population growth came loss of wild habitat, which contributed to the decline of number of hunters, so fewer young folks are exposed to it. The decline of predators like wolves and puma also makes nature look a lot more benign than it really is.
It all means Singer, and the AR movement in general, have a steady stream of naive college-aged kids ready to accept their dogma as their chosen form of post-adolescent rebellion.
June 9th, 2010 | 6:38 pm
I reviewed this book when it came out on MercatorNet
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_ultimate_miserabilist/
What I found interesting about Singer’s article is that he is optimistic compared with Benatar. Actually, reading Benatar is a sort of reverse hang-over. You feel so bad reading the book and so good afterwards.
June 9th, 2010 | 9:26 pm
I see no problem with the human species going extinct voluntarily. But I don’t think there’s any reason that we should cause the species to go extinct, so on this point I disagree with Singer.
But I also don’t think the human species has any value of itself (individual humans do, but the species doesn’t), so likewise we couldn’t justify involuntarily prolonging the survival of the species (e.g. though forced impregnation).
June 9th, 2010 | 10:13 pm
I suggest that Mr. Singer lead by example and kill himself. Why? Because if he won’t practice what he preaches then he’s obviously playing people for suckers.
Furthermore, who the hell died and made him God? He isn’t any better than the rest of us. What he REALLY wants us to do is drop dead so that HE can party with OUR stuff. Damned miscreant…
June 10th, 2010 | 7:58 am
Perhaps this explains the Fermi Paradox.
June 10th, 2010 | 11:34 am
Check out Jim Crawford’s blog antinatalism.net, and his recently published book “Confessions of an Antinatalist“.
June 11th, 2010 | 5:11 pm
[...] Wesley J. Smith, a longtime critic of Singer’s work, responded to Singer’s recent article, saying, “This is nihilism on stilts and it is polluting the West’s self confidence and belief in [...]
June 11th, 2010 | 11:18 pm
Peter Singer is a dangerous ideologue, apparently one with friends in high places. That Princeton University keeps him on is a moral crime in itself. Tenure should be shattered in his case, considering his wicked and dystopian vision of the not-so-human Future.
June 12th, 2010 | 7:00 am
Wesley, as usual, you haven’t done anything to counter his argument. You’ve merely balked at a proposition that is very foreign to you, and concluded it morally wrong. Just because something sounds intuitively undesirable; doesn’t make it wrong.
Why is it wrong? Because it goes against what your supposed Sky Daddy hawks?
June 12th, 2010 | 7:04 am
“I suggest that Mr. Singer lead by example and kill himself. Why? Because if he won’t practice what he preaches then he’s obviously playing people for suckers.”
He didn’t preach anything of the sort. How does something (a potential sentient being) that, as we speak, isn’t in existence (not even a twinkle in its mother’s or father’s eye; so to speak), compare to an actual interest-bearing life? Ad absurdum, much.
June 14th, 2010 | 8:05 am
I agree, in part, with his thoughts. First, yes, we urgenly need population control. Start by offering free sterilization to anyone age 16 and older. Manditory sterlization for the prison populations, HIV/AIDs and other serious disease carriers. Manditory sterlization for welfare mothers and their sperm doners after their 1st child not their 10th.
These measures will greatly reduce future population.
June 14th, 2010 | 9:47 pm
Or, as RB already noted, just smoke cigarettes, young and often:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-ecofriendly-cigarettes-kill-destructive-human,17529/
June 15th, 2010 | 12:48 am
Firstly, it’s unfair to call all antinatalists nihilists. Nihilism, in its purest/ most un-hypocritical form, says there are NO values. This is not what Benatar (and I presume Singer) argues from. In fact, Benatar’s antinatalism stems from values like compassion for others, considering future generations’ well-being and the overall value of relieving others’ sufferings. You may disagree with the conclusions Benatar draws from these values (i.e. antinatalism), but the fact remains that NO morally sane person can disagree with these values. Therefore, its an unwarranted leap to claim that antinatalism is necessarily nihilist.
At any rate, Chip Smith of the website “The Hoover Hog”, himself a fervent antinatalist, disagrees with Benatar’s cost-benefit reasoning precisely because it can lead to genocide, at least in theory. Therefore, he proposed, in simple language the principle of self-ownership (the right to own one’s self) and it’s follow-up idea the principle of non-agression as a basis for not having children. Essentially, Smith argues:
*We can’t consent to be born into any world, let alone a world whose rules and a “human nature” we might not agree with.
*This world has suffering in it, and ultimately to death – a (normally) undesirable state in which to be.
*Therefore, bringing people into this world violates their right of self-ownership by making them “play the game” when they cannot consent to the rules of that game beforehand.
*The game has rules a lot of people don’t like, therefore it’s wrong for them to be forced to play “The Game of Life”
*Therefore, it’s immoral to procreate.
As for the “Why don’t you kill yourself?” line, they (and I) say that suicide causes suffering for family and friends – and even people who never met you but are nevertheless upset that someone took their life. Therefore, asking an antinatalist (especially a philanthropic antinatalist) to kill themselves is asking them to create more suffering in this world; thereby creating more of the very suffering antinatalists seek to prevent. In short, asking Benatar, et. at to kill themselves is asking them to be the very hypocrite you accuse them of being when they don’t off themselves.
June 15th, 2010 | 12:02 pm
This is nihilism on stilts and it is polluting the West’s self confidence and belief in universal human equality like the BP oil well is polluting the Caribbean. Only the resulting mess isn’t measured in polluted beaches and dead birds, but existential despair that destroys human lives.
****************************************
The antinatalist view is most certainly not “nihilism on stilts”, nor is it counter intuitive. It is compassionate, empathetic, and holds the individual responsible for their actions. How can you make such a claim that the philosophy pollutes the West’s confidence in universal human equality? Right off the bat, it sounds to me like you have the “Us versus Them” mentality to contend with. That is to say, you believe the “first world” must out breed the “third world”, or else lose to the unwashed masses. Your bias is showing. By not breeding more humans, you can in fact, strengthen respect and equality by adopting or donating money toward causes. Even better, you can donate your time for your favorite cause. When you offer yourself, you raise the level of awareness because other people are able to see your ideals manifested in your actions. Not just a monetary sum that is subject to the ravages of taxation, inflation, and corruption. Respecting the individual by understanding that we are not all the same but we are all equal, is the ultimate acknowledgement of liberty. If everyone thought this world was one big party (like you apparently do) then there wouldn’t be disagreements like this, would there? A moment of pleasure for you wouldn’t become a lifetime of pain for someone else. Besides, death is the great equalizer. Going a step further and never making a potential person actual is even better. Learn to mind your own business if you truely value equality.
****************************************
We have to “justify” continuing the species? Good grief. Under the influence of anti-human advocates like Peter Singer, we have gone in the West from seeking to “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity,” to seriously questioning whether there should be any posterity at all. This is not healthy. But it is the natural consequence of rejecting human exceptionalism.
****************************************
As a matter of fact, yes, you do have to justify continuing a species. Some who are reading this might find themselves having to give account to their own children for their selfish actions. Sounding as though you are taken aback at such a thought is not a free pass. Are you familiar with the term “speciesism”? Obviously you are. “Human exceptionalism” is just a facade for a clear bias toward the promotion of one’s own ego. There is nothing unhealthy about humility. Humility contributes to: low stress levels, absence of hyper-tension (and it’s resulting ills and complications). A clear conscience is clearly a positive contributing factor to mental and physical health. In any case, the end result of discontinuation of a species does not require the presence of physical health. That is because of the absence of physical presence. To believe otherwise… now THAT would be counter intuitive.
Cheers
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact