There is an old legend that King Midas for a long time hunted the wise Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, in the forests, without catching him. When Silenus finally fell into the king’s hands, the king asked what was the best thing of all for men, the very finest. The daemon remained silent, motionless and inflexible, until, compelled by the king, he finally broke out into shrill laughter and said these words, “Suffering creature, born for a day, child of accident and toil, why are you forcing me to say what would give you the greatest pleasure not to hear? The very best thing for you is totally unreachable: not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing. The second-best thing for you, however, is this — to die soon.”
-Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy
A classic metaphysical question is “why is there something rather than nothing?” An interesting value question is “is it better to be nothing rather than something?” That is, is it better “not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing?”
Addressing this question requires determining the measure of value that should be used. One standard approach is to use the crude currencies of pleasure and pain. A somewhat more refined approach is to calculate in terms of happiness and unhappiness. Or one could simply go generic and use vague categories of positive value and negative value.
What also must be determined is the best moral theory to use. For the individual, a sensible theory would be ethical egoism, that what a person should do is what maximizes the positive value for them. On this view, it would be better if the person did not exist if their existence would generate more negative than positive value for them. It would be better if the person existed if their existence would generate more positive than negative value for them.
To make an argument in favor of never existing being better than existing, one likely approach is to make use of the problem of evil, such as the version developed by David Hume. When discussing this matter, Hume contends that everyone believes life is miserable and presents an impressive catalog of pains and evils. While he considers that pain is less frequent than pleasure, he notes that even if this is true, pain “is infinitely more violent and durable.” As such, Hume makes a strong case that the negative value of existence outweighs its positive value.
If it is true that the negative value outweighs the positive value, and better is measured in terms of maximizing value, then it would thus seem to be better to have never existed. After all, existence will result (if Hume is right) in more pain than pleasure. In contrast, non-existence will have no pain (and no pleasure) for a total of zero. Doing value math, since zero is greater than a negative value, never existing is better than existing.
But this sort of calculation might seem odd. After all, if the person does not exist, then their pleasure and pain will not balance to zero. Rather this sum would be an undefined value. It cannot be better for a person that they do not exist, since there would not be anyone for the nonexistence to be better for.
This can be countered by saying that this is just a semantic trick and nonexistence would be better than existence because of the relative balance of pleasure and pain. There is also another approach, which is to broaden the calculation from the individual to the world.
In this case, the question would not be about whether it would be better for an individual to exist, but whether a world with the individual would be better than a world without them. If a consequentialist approach is assumed, if it is assumed that pain and pleasure are the measure of value and if it is assumed that pain will outweigh pleasure in every life, then the world would be better if a person never existed. This is because the absence of an individual would reduce the overall pain. Given these assumptions, a world with no humans at all would be a better world. This could be extended to its logical conclusion: if suffering outweighs the pleasures in the case of all beings (Hume did argue that the suffering of all creatures exceeds their enjoyments), then it would be better that no feeling creatures existed. At this point, one might as well do away with existence altogether and have nothing. Thus, while it might not be known why there is something rather than nothing, this argument would seem to show that it would be better to have nothing rather than something.
Of course, this reasoning rests on many assumptions. It can be argued that the measure of value is not solely in terms of pleasures and pains. That is, even if life resulted in more pain than pleasure, the overall positive value could be greater than the negative value. For example, the creation of art and the development of knowledge could provide value that outweighs the pain. It could also be argued that the consequentialist approach is in error and that estimating the worth of life is not just a matter of tallying up the negative and positive. There are, after all, many other moral theories of the value of existence. It is also possible to dispute the claim that pain exceeds pleasure (or that unhappiness exceeds happiness).
The Nietzsche’s part is pretty great. I only tried to read Ecce Homo and hated it and gave up Nietzsche’s entirely, but I knew I was missing something.
“not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing?”
I think these two things are completely different. More about that below.
”the crude currencies of pleasure and pain”. Are they really crude? They seem to virtually drive every single thing we do.
” Or one could simply go generic and use vague categories of positive value and negative value.”. That’s how Schopenhauer referred to happiness being negative, i.e. if it’s not there, it’s no real biggie. But if pain it’s there, which is positive, it is very clearly felt: ”Pleasures are always illusory, and short-lived, for as soon as one is reached, the next one is searched for. But pain and sorrow, are always real, and long lasting.”.
”It would be better if the person existed if their existence would generate more positive than negative value for them.”. Schopenhauer sets the standard even lower in his Parerga: ‘ Whoever knows about me, when asking the question ‘can one be happy’, they know that my philosophy returns a negative answer. However, in these writings, I’ll take the more popular approach, i.e. what the Greeks called eudaimonia, and assert that life, to be worth living, should be at least tolerable…”.
Hume, interesting. I haven’t read Hume but some of his thoughts actually resemble those of Schopenhauer, whom was probably influenced by him (and in fact he mentions Hume many times in his works.).
By the way….I see some philosophy professors around seeming offended by Schopenhauers’s admittedly excessive rantings against ‘philosophy professors’, but I strongly believed he was attacking the ones he saw, not future ones. It seems crazy to imagine a Schopenhauer putting down a Michael LaBossiere for teaching philosophy at college. To the contrary, he would probably be pleased that there’s philosophers at all who teach others. Anyway.
”After all, if the person does not exist, then their pleasure and pain will not balance to zero. Rather this sum would be an undefined value”.
What would be the difference, Professor? We can call it ‘zero’ ‘undefined value’ or anything we like. In my perhaps delusional imagination, perhaps not (since I know you know a lot more than I and thus I have to accept my chance of being wrong could be higher), here arrives Schopenhauer, who destroys the whole thing:
”Pleasure and pain are part of the world of appearance. This world disappear if there’s no subject that dwells in it.”.
Nothing means everything disappeared. Sums, subjects, worlds, objects, ideas, etc etc.
”Doing value math, since zero is greater than a negative value, never existing is better than existing.”. According to whom is zero a greater than a negative value? To me and I assume, the majority of the population, it makes no difference. But if any really exists, is so minuscule that its importance is quickly forgotten. It’s as if I were saying, would I rather have $ 1.000.000.000.000.000 in my bank account, or would I rather have $ 1.000.000.000.000.001 ?
”would not be about whether it would be better for an individual to exist, but whether a world with the individual would be better than a world without them”.
But what would someone who does NOT exists, care for ANY worlds? I’ll get to my conclusion, which I alluded before, in a bit…
” if suffering outweighs the pleasures in the case of all beings (Hume did argue that the suffering of all creatures exceeds their enjoyments), then it would be better that no feeling creatures existed. At this point, one might as well do away with existence altogether and have nothing.”.
I agree. What would be a world of stones if no one or nothing can even feel the presence of the stones? I commend you for the honesty. That’s what I love about good philosophers: they don’t give a damn, and truly say what they think. Pessimistic? Bleak? Ugly? Deal with it. Most people run away from these things because they don’t know how to handle them. And they are right, for most of them didn’t learn anything. How can they handle this stuff? But it’s sad to see young people handling it, who don’t know enough. So you hear about a kid who took his life because he didn’t pass a grade (which had been given in error, even!). He didn’t know that in a few years, he would not have given a toss about such a thing, and that it would not define someone, as many remarkable people were actually ‘bad students’.
” For example, the creation of art and the development of knowledge could provide value that outweighs the pain.”. This is exactly what Schopenhauer also believed. And I, since I have been a serious musician for decades, meaning, playing, creating, and learning about music every single day. The idea is that one momentarily loses himself in the art or absorption of knowledge, which causes him to ‘forget himself’. A bit like the modern idea of ‘flow’. The point being: one should always be sure of working on something, as Schopenhauer states: ‘…..this is of utmost importance, according to our talents, whether it means writing a book, or making a basket.’.
I actually wrote a piece of music based on this idea.
”It is also possible to dispute the claim that pain exceeds pleasure (or that unhappiness exceeds happiness).”. Ah! That would be very interesting and I look forward to your future essay about this.
Here’s my conclusion. I actually arrived at it by thinking about what is, for me, the greatest philosophical statement ever uttered, that by Epicurus:
”Death is nothing to us. For, as long as we live, we aren’t dead. And once we are dead, we won’t care anymore.”.
Which led me to this conclusion. It’s better to never having been born, for this simple reason: if one is not born, he has virtually nothing to lose, absolutely nothing. But once born, he has literally EVERYTHING to lose. Even if life isn’t lost, anything and everything that belongs to his own person, and essence. Anything that belongs to his body and mind
Wow. And what absolutely boggles my mind, is seeing people happily bearing children like rabbits. No one asks themselves the question: ‘Hold on, what if ANYTHING goes wrong for my child? What if they contract a serious disease, what if they end up crippled, what if they become monsters?’.
No, every damn fool seems to go: ‘Hey, let’s be happy! Let’s find a ‘partner’ and pretend it’s all like a Pez dispenser, churning out children.’.
Ah yes, ‘boundless egoism’, as the man Schopenhauer called it.
Thank you for your essay! This is probably the no. 1 philosophical topic ever, other than the problem of evil. I am certainly not a philosopher, I am just an idiot who tries to learn from people who aren’t idiots. Thank you, and sorry for my confused thoughts.
”not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing?”
Ah yes, I believe these two to be completely different. Not to be born means it will never matter and there’s nothing to lose. A-OK. But if one is born, other than having EVERYTHING to lose (thus as Schopenhauer said: the income doesn’t make up for the expenses) things are a lot more complicated. Now your life is inevitably tied to the life of others. So whether you think life has meaning, or not, it doesn’t matter, except for exercising intellectual faculties. A good thing, but no solution to the problem. It’s as if you had invested all your billions, (and in fact your own very being!), and now you can’t call the thing off anymore.
So, to not have been born, that’s after all the best possible outcome: you won’t care, as Epicurus would probably say himself. Schopenhauer also said a similar thing: ‘after you die, you become what you were before being born (i.e. nothing).
But if you ARE born, then the question ‘would it be best to be nothing’ becomes a LOT more complicated. Because now you have EVERYTHING to lose!
Darn it, if only Donald Dump had a thinking brain at all…. (sorry that’s a non sequitur)
Further: to me being ‘dead’ is equal to this: eternally sleeping a dreamless sleep, forever undisturbed. For what is the difference between that and the common ‘idea’ of being dead (which is hardly an idea at all)?
But then I spring to life. For a VERY short time, even should I live to 80. And I’ll have the be subject to old age, which I call ‘first death’, and the worst one.
How could life be worth it at ALL compared to an eternal, dreamless, tranquil sleep? This is why Schopenhauer called life a DISTURBANCE. And there’s more: suppose we had a legal, painless way to bow out of life. All that is needed is filling out a simple form, then enter a chamber where the person presses a button while he listens to his favourite song, Hotel California.
How many BILLIONS will have filled in that form in a decade or so?
To be sure: I don’t define myself a ‘nihilist’. Not at all. – IF – I am born, my life is probably inextricably linked to someone else’s life, a relative, even a friend. I can’t just bow out, (which is different than not being born at all, as I wrote before). Schopenhauer did not condemn suicide, and I agree, BUT, I still believe (he probably believed that too) that to ‘bow out of life’ for reasons such as I am not a millionaire, I don’t have a girlfriend, my girlfriend left me, my wife divorced me, I have lost my job, etc etc, all these common and even mundane reasons, is equivalent to be a weakling and yes, a coward.
One should not bow out if this would devastate other people’s lives linked to him, unless for extremely serious reasons, for example that poor devil Robin Williams (which would be the subject of the problem of assisted dying: no one should be as desperate as Williams. But we live in a stupid, ignorant world where ‘death is simply something that happens to others’, in which people only care about ‘living well’ but not ‘dying well’, as if the latter were any less important!
And so in my opinion, whoever ‘bows out’ unless for extremely serious reasons such as Williams’s, is indeed a weakling and a coward, because such an extreme gesture not only is objectively unjustified if one agrees with what has been said earlier, but is driven by ‘boundless egoism’, since it would devastate the lives of other people connected to his.
And therefore I agree with Plato (paraphrasing): ‘whoever is that cowardly person, should be buried in the middle of nowhere in an unmarked grave, and should be forgotten.’.
I know the essay didn’t mention suicide, but well, it’s about being something vs nothing, i.e. not being born or being dead, in short a big Pandora’s Box, so one thing leads to the other, I think.