David Benatar What Is Right About Having Children

What Is Right About Having Children?
Some philosophers hold that having children is impermissible under any circumstances, call this view global anti-natalism. Among these philosophers, David Benatar (2006) introduces a famous asymmetry argument on individuals’ evaluation of pain, pleasure, absence of pain and absence of pleasure (30-31). Based on this argument, Benatar believes, “Being brought into existence is not a benefit but always a harm” (28); thus global anti-natalism (i.e. it is always wrong to have children). Although I agree with Benatar’s asymmetry argument and admit that one is always seriously harmed because of her existence, I argue that the global anti-natalist conclusion does not follow. In order to do this, I will first present Benatar’s asymmetry argument. Then, I will show how a global anti-natalist conclusion fails to follow from his argument. I will next consider the particular reason that justifies procreation. Finally, I will respond to possible objections to my arguments.
I. Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument Benatar’s (2013) asymmetry argument goes as follows:
1. The presence of pain is bad; and
2. The presence of pleasure is good.
3. The absence of pain is good even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone; but

First, our reasoning may well be biased toward ourselves. Say a potential individual X’s parents are both believers of a moral obligation to have children. Challenged by the asymmetry argument, her parents might overestimate the pleasure X would gain and underestimate the pain X would experience in order to justify their action of bring X into existence. Second, as L. A. Paul (2015) notes, “you cannot rationally choose to have a child based on what you think it will be like to have a child” (168). People may also plausibly expect that we cannot rationally choose to have a child based on what we think it will be like for that child to