
If you’ve been hanging around philosophy long enough, you know the drill. The weight of existence presses down on you like a hundred-pound hangover.
Every time you think you’ve got it figured out, someone like David Benetar comes along and rips the rug right out from under you.
And there you are, standing in the dark, your mind spinning, trying to make sense of something that doesn’t make sense.
I’ve spent years wrestling with ideas in a stuffy room full of books no one cares about.
Five years writing copy for some soul-sucking agency that leaves you wondering if life’s only purpose is to sell people crap they don’t need.
And still, nothing’s ever really clear. Maybe that’s the point.
I’ve been chewing over Benetar’s Better Never to Have Been. He lays out this concept called the axiological asymmetry, and it’s about as fun as getting punched in the stomach by your own thoughts.
He says existence is worse than non-existence. Let that sink in. Existence, with all its mess, its pain, its fleeting pleasures, and eventual decay, is just plain worse than not existing at all.
Now, I know that sounds like the sort of thing a drunk would mumble in a bar at 3 a.m., but Benetar’s got his reasons.
And, to be honest, it’s hard to argue with him. Maybe that’s why this idea keeps gnawing at me like a rat in the walls.
Benetar’s Axiological Asymmetry
Benetar’s argument isn’t some tedious lecture that drones on about happiness and misery in the same breath. No, he gets straight to the point with brutal honesty.
According to him, pain is bad, pleasure is good—but here’s where it gets twisted. The absence of pain is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad.
Does that sound crazy? Yeah, it does. But listen up, because it gets worse—and by worse, I mean it gets more reasonable, which is even worse.
You see, according to Benetar, non-existence—the total void, the perfect nothingness—is preferable to existence. Why? Because life inevitably brings pain, and any amount of pain, no matter how small, means that life is inherently worse than never having been born at all.
Non-existence, in his view, avoids harm entirely. The non-existent don’t suffer. They don’t know what it’s like to stub their toe, break a heart, or stare into the abyss of a meaningless world. They don’t feel the sting of loss. And maybe that’s why they’re better off.
You know what? He might be right. Hell, I’ve spent most of my days trying to find meaning in a world that seems to run on suffering and distraction.
The idea that non-existence is superior sounds like a relief, a way to escape the grind, the ceaseless attempt to extract meaning from a life that’s always half-broken.
The Struggle with Happiness Math: Life Isn’t About Adding and Subtracting Utils
Look, I get it. On paper, Benetar’s view is neat. You add up the pleasures and subtract the pains, and if the net result is positive, then life’s worth living, right?
That’s the simple, utilitarian calculation we’ve been spoon-fed since grade school.
So why does Benetar’s theory mess with that? Why does he argue that even a life of moderate happiness is worse than not existing at all?
Here’s the issue: Benetar’s argument isn’t about happiness math. It’s about harm. He doesn’t give a damn about balancing out the good and bad in some utilitarian calculus.
Instead, he’s focusing on the fact that even the tiniest amount of pain, even if you’re mostly happy, makes life worse than non-existence. No, you don’t get to sit there and say, “Well, if I had 100 utils of happiness and only -1 util of pain, I’d be net-positive, right?” That’s not how this works.
To Benetar, any harm at all makes life worse. Even if your life is 99% blissful, the existence of that tiny bit of pain means it’s still worse than a life that doesn’t exist—because a non-existent being suffers no pain.
You can’t argue that life is worth living because it’s got some good stuff in it, no matter how much happiness is involved. In the grand scheme of things, the harm—any harm—disqualifies existence from being preferable to non-existence.
I get it, though. The math doesn’t add up, right? You want to argue that a happy life is still better than nothing. And maybe that’s true.
But that’s not what Benetar’s after. He’s not talking about joy or satisfaction. Once again, he’s talking about harm. And according to his theory, harm is always worse than the void. Non-existence, free from all harm, wins every time.
Explaining Benetar’s Asymmetry Like I’m Talking to a Kid
Alright, let’s slow down. If you’re a philosophy apprentice—or, hell, if you’re just someone who’s never really thought about this stuff—let’s break it down. Imagine you have two options.
Option one: You live a life where you’re generally happy, but you experience some pain here and there—like, you get a papercut, or someone dumps you, or you find out the world’s been lying to you for years.
Option two: You don’t exist at all. No paper cuts, no heartbreaks, no joy either—just nothingness. No pain. No pleasure.
Now, here’s the twist that’s gonna make your brain hurt: Benetar says that Option two is better. Why? Because, according to him, even though Option one has some happiness, it also has pain.
And that pain—whether it’s a tiny paper cut or the crushing weight of human suffering—makes life worse than not existing.
Non-existence has no pain, no harm, nothing to feel. It’s clean, like an empty room. It’s not a pleasant thought, but it’s his idea.
Think of it this way: Would you rather feel joy and sadness, knowing that the sadness is always lurking around the corner? Or would you prefer not to feel anything at all?
For Benetar, the second option—no feeling, no suffering—is the better one.
The Critics of Benetar’s Asymmetry
Not everyone’s buying what Benetar’s selling. In fact, the world’s full of people who would scoff at his theory like it’s the worst kind of nihilism.
You’ve got thinkers who argue that life, even with its pain, has value. They say that it’s not about avoiding harm—it’s about living fully, embracing the human condition with all its mess. Some say life is about transcendence, growth, or finding joy in the suffering.
Take a look at some of these critics:
Philosopher/Thinker | Argument Against Benetar’s Asymmetry | Key Works |
---|---|---|
Thomas Metzinger | The self and consciousness bring meaning to life, even in pain. | The Ego Tunnel |
Roger Scruton | Life’s value comes from transcendence and embracing the potential for joy. | The Soul of the World |
Alain de Botton | Life’s worth comes from how we make peace with suffering. | The Consolations of Philosophy |
Martha Nussbaum | Flourishing lives, despite pain, are valuable. | Creating Capabilities |
Big books argue that life, with all its chaos and contradiction, is still worth living because it’s where we find meaning.
Fiction tells us that there’s something transcendent about existence, even when it’s brutal and absurd.
You Can Run, But You Can’t Escape…
Benetar’s asymmetry isn’t just some philosophical theory. It’s a mirror to the darkness we all try to avoid. If non-existence is better, if life with any pain is worse than nothing at all, then what the hell is the point of living?
Why keep struggling, striving, bleeding out our existence for a fleeting glimpse of meaning that always slips through our fingers?
Maybe that’s the joke, though. The real darkness isn’t in suffering. It’s in the idea that we don’t matter.
That we’re just floating along, insignificant, waiting for the inevitable end.
But here’s the thing: maybe that’s the choice we still get to make. Maybe the question isn’t about whether life is worth living, but whether we’ll find meaning in it.
Yeah, life sucks. Yeah, it’s complicated. But our choices—how we respond to this chaos—will decide the future.
Maybe the only thing that matters is the fight itself. The choice to go on, to keep living in the face of everything that says we shouldn’t.
In the end, it might just be that our choice defines what comes next. And if that’s the best we’ve got.
Let’s hope it’s enough.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.