The question of whether existing can be judged as a benefit or a harm, or if this judgment can even be made, has been addressed in the writings of David Benatar and Derek Parfit. In his paper Why it is Better to Never Have Come into Existence, Benatar progresses the view that it is always a harm to have been brought into existence. Parfit, however, takes a different position on this question, arguing that a person can be benefitted from being brought into existence in his paper Whether Causing Someone to Exist Can Benefit This Person. For the purpose of this paper, I will begin by offering a brief summary of each author’s main claim, and then provide a critique of their arguments. I then will then offer an objection from the point of view of …show more content…
This is because he seems to take the value of a life into account in a more holistic way than Benatar does. Parfit does not make a claim of what would count as a benefit or a harm in someone’s life, and so we can assume that they could be influenced by other people. Contrarily, Benatar responds to common views concerning a couple’s choice to conceive based on the existence of a child alone, and not in respect to the people who will be bringing that child into existence. For instance, when a couple chooses not to have a child because they suspect that this child’s life will be one of suffering, that decision may be made partly because the potential parents would not want to be seen as selfish. By this, I mean that the reasons people have children are often connected to satisfying some personal need, and to choose to pursue that desire over the wellbeing of this child would be viewed negatively by others aware of the situation. Benatar seems to believe that a couple would choose not to have a child simply based on the prospects of that child’s life, which I believe to be
McCloskey begins by addressing the cosmological argument. He proposes that the existence of the world itself does not give reason to believe in a necessarily existing being. McCloskey believes there is a lack of evidence to show the world had a cause and that God was that cause. However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist. These beings are often contingent on another being. Th...
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it.
In Dan Marquis’ article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, he argues that aborting a fetus is like killing a human being already born and it deprives them of their future. Marquis leaves out the possible exceptions to abortion that include: a threat to the mom’s life, contraceptives, and pregnancy by rape. First, I will explain Marquis’ pro-life argument in detail about his statements of why abortion is morally wrong. Like in many societies, killing an innocent human being is considered morally wrong, just like in the United States. Second, I will state my objection to Marquis’ argument by examining the difference between a human being’s already born future compared to a potential fetus’s future.
The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own.
In this paper, I will use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments
...s like for the agent plays the central role, if not the only role” in this decision, as well as the claim that most people make their decision to procreate in this manner. However, I feel that very few people actually make their decision based solely on the phenomenal outcomes. I think this is a reductive claim that discounts the multiple reasons which inform the decision to have children. Paul herself dismisses the idea that individuals might decide “[to have a child] solely on the chance that [they] will end up in a class of individuals who maximized their overall utility”. This is as she finds the claim that anyone might base their decision off a single factor – in this case, the chance to maximize utility – unrealistic. In the same way, the idea that anyone would base their decisions solely on what they think it would be like to have a child seems unrealistic.
Philosophers of the Medieval period struggled with the problem of evil - specifically, the existence of evil brought a question to the fore: if the world was created by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, then how was it that evil existed? To further complicate the matter, a second question branched off of the first as individuals pondered over whether or not God was ultimately the cause of evil. If God created everything, and evil exists as part of everything, then God, logically, had created evil. But this presented yet another issue, in that if God had knowingly created evil, then he could not truly be all-good. And it is these concerns that philosophers addressed.
Although referred to as a distinct philosophy, it seems nearly impossible to find an exact definition for the term “existentialism.” This is primarily true because existen...
The issue of free will has been a contentious one for a long time now between philosophers. Many have debated over the issue and ended up taking different stances. In this essay paper, I will argue the viewpoints of two great individuals in the field of philosophy; Pereboom and J. Coates whereby it is understood that they took completely different positions regarding this combative matter. An inquiry into the works of the two will enable us to answer these two imperative questions: Does denial of unregulated factors hinder the value and meaning of life? Also, is their need to defend free will rationally?
The following essay will examine the morality of abortion with specific reference to the writings of Don Marquis, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Peter Singer and Mary Anne Warren. I will begin by assessing the strength of the argument provided by Marquis which claims that abortion is impermissible because it deprives a being of a potential “future like ours,” and then go on to consider the writings of Singer, Thomson and Warren to both refute Marquis claims and support my assertion that abortion is morally permissible primarily because of the threat to the freedom and bodily autonomy of women extending the right to life to a foetus in utero would pose.
...gical argument for that of existence that parallels Wittgenstein’s investigations on the meanings of words. In my own life, I accept that my existence is largely ambiguous and that I am disclosing who I am every instant I make a choice, even if I direct that choice toward a goal. The indeterminate characteristic of ambiguity may make some uneasy when applying the word to their existence, but I find comfort in knowing that my existence can ultimately be defined as I see fit. I am glad that, through my own freedom, I am able to live and make sense of the world; I exist.
The existence of god has been relentlessly debated with many strong arguments. This essay will primarily discuss the most prevalent arguments for and against the existence of a higher being. Although there are many strong arguments for both atheism and theism, ultimately the theist point of view is greater justified morally and logically.
Sanger explains that people who aren’t fit to care for a child shouldn’t bare children. She goes on to explain that the less irresponsible and reckless people there are “the less immortality shall exist”. Sanger wants to stop the disease known as over population at the source which is in the hands of women controlling the number of offspring they bring into the world. The argument in the speech is that using contraception doesn’t lower morals, when actually not using contraception is immoral because irresponsible people are “filling the earth with misery, poverty, and disease” (Sanger
In ‘Why it is Better Never to Come into Existence’ (Benatar, 1997), David Benatar argues that by bringing a person into existence, one harms him, and thus to bring anyone into existence is wrong. This notion is based upon a subtle distinction between weighing up pain and pleasure within an already existing being’s life, and weighing up pain and pleasure for a non-being.
Erich Fromm was an influential German psychoanalyst and philosopher in the 20th Century. One of his most important works is the text, “To Have or to Be?” This book highlights Fromm’s opinion of the difference of “having” and “being” and why they are both important aspects to one’s life. The two different concepts have been widely debated between philosophers and analysts throughout the years. The term “having” seems to be the easier mode to define, while “being” becomes more complicated to outline.