Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

by David Benatar

Judging the absence of pleasure to be 'not good' is also too weak in that it does not say enough. Of course the absence of pleasure is not what we would call good. However, the important question, when the absence of pleasure involves no deprivation for anybody, is whether it is also `not bad' or whether it is `bad'. The answer, I suggest, is that it is `not good, but not bad either' rather than `not good, but bad'. Because `not bad' is a more informative evaluation than `not good', that is the one I prefer. However, even those who wish to stick with `not good' will not thereby succeed in restoring symmetry. If pain is bad and pleasure is good, but the absence of pain is good and the absence of pleasure not good, then there is no symmetry between pleasure and pain.

Should the last "not good" be "not bad"?