A Dilemma for Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument

Abstract In this paper, I show that David Benatar’s asymmetry argument for anti-natalism leads to a dilemma. Chapter 2 of his book Better Never Have Been , Benatar claims there is an axiological between harms and benefits explains four prevalent asymmetries. Based on the asymmetry, he defends anti-natalist conclusion we should not have children. The asymmetries be explained are moral duties, reasons, attitudes, or feelings concerning life as whole. However, them by applying parts life, such pains pleasures. find serious gap here. While two ways available bridge gap, dilemma arises from argument. supported because it cannot explain asymmetries, else lead conclusion. A number philosophers already criticized argument, mainly questioning its assumptions. contend no good reason agree with even if all explicit assumptions accepted.