<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>David Benatar on Amitav Krishna</title>
    <link>https://amitav.net/tags/david-benatar.html</link>
    <description>Recent content in David Benatar on Amitav Krishna</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- 0.146.6</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 02:17:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://amitav.net/tags/david-benatar/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Reflections on the Preface and Introduction to &#34;Better Never to Have Been&#34; by David Benatar</title>
      <link>https://amitav.net/posts/reflections-on-the-preface-and-introduction-to-better-never-to-have-been-by-david-benatar.html</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 02:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://amitav.net/posts/reflections-on-the-preface-and-introduction-to-better-never-to-have-been-by-david-benatar.html</guid>
      <description>&lt;h1 id=&#34;preface&#34;&gt;Preface&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Relatively unremarkable, the only notable thing is that he seemed quite pessimistic about the expected impact of his work, though I suppose pessimism is what I would expect.  The preceding sentence was not intended to be derogatory.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h1 id=&#34;introduction&#34;&gt;Introduction&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ibid means that the same source cited.  He refutes the idea that this conclusion that it is good to not exist is absurd.  That conclusion &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; absurd, because one can do no good for one that does not exist, because definitionally nothing can be done to them.  He refutes this by inverting this, and arguing that existing is bad for those existing.  I think that this is an as-of-yet unproven assertion that existence is bad for those existing, but I do accept the idea that existence&lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be bad for those existing.  He asserts that life is ultimately pointless.  He argues that pro-natal views are inherently advantaged, which I accept &lt;em&gt;given&lt;/em&gt; that I accept that a child is inherently more likely to choose views agreeing with their parents than against them.  He speaks a little of social pressures, but that&amp;rsquo;s mostly uninteresting to me, apart from this quote:&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
