ڈیوڈ بیناتر کے دلائل کا فلسفیانہ جواب
A Philosophical Answer to the Arguments of David Benatar

Farhad Ali *
PhD Scholar, Department of Islamic Studies, HITEC University, Texila, Pakistan.

Dr. Ahmad Hassan **
Assistant Professor, Department of Islamic Studies, HITEC University, Texila, Pakistan.

Abstract

Declaring life to be the worst and consequently abandoning comforts and giving preference to non-existence over human existence is an ancient concept. The earliest traces of which were found in ancient Greek civilization. A glimpse of this concept is found in Christianity in the form of monasticism and in Buddhism in the method of attaining Nirvana. In modern times the term “Antinatalism” is used for this concept. The basic premise of this theory is that humanity must be eliminated from the world and that it is the responsibility of the people to abandon Procreation.

Many contemporary Western Thinkers have tried to revive this ideology by presenting it in a modern way. One of the leading thinkers is David Benatar, who in his book “Better Never to Have Been, The Harm of Coming into Existence” presented Hedonistic Theory, Desire Fulfillment Theory, and Objective List Theory to declare worldly life worse. Also, by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of existence and non-existence, it is claimed that every human being is harmed by being created and all forms of life are worse.

The purpose of this research paper is to provide a philosophical review and answer to these views. As a result of philosophical critique, this research leads to the conclusion that his arguments are flawed and weak, due to which non-existence has no superiority over human existence.

Keywords

Antinatalism, Existence, life, Non-Existence, Procreation, Harm.

Al-Wifaq

Vol 5

Issue 1

January – June 2022

Menu