2023 Volume 90 Issue 2 Pages 262-272
In recent years, discussion about anti-natalism has become active in various areas. This movement is attributed to South African philosopher David Benatar's book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming to Existence (2006). In response, the aim of this paper is to clarify the one aspect of education which can respond to anti-natalism. To this aim, the following issues are addressed.
First, we examine education from the perspective of the argument of the “asymmetry of pleasure and pain” that constitutes the foundation of Benatar's “anti-natalism.” He rejects education if it involves the possibility of pain (Section 1). However, pain exists, and people who feel pain keep being born. Although he accepts this fact, he does not think that it is desirable that those who are born always choose death or suicide (Section 2). How should these people live their lives? Here, we examine the “agnosticism about the value of life” of Kazuo Kojima, known as Benatar's translator. Kojima's logic has a wider scope than Benatar's: based on his argument, no one knows whether birth is better or worse. Therefore, the previous generation is charged with the “obligation to make life better” for the new generation born lacking this knowledge (Section 3).
Next, we consider whether education can respond to this obligation. It is clear from this examination that all education is not prized. While aware of this, can we conceive of education which can respond to anti-natalism (Section 4)? At last, in order to answer this question, we examine Hannah Arendt's argument, which takes the anti-natalism of ancient Greece and finds its responsiveness in “action.” Arendt believes that people can endow their lives with splendor, improve their lives and live better, through “action.” She expects education to play the role of “preparation” for this situation. Education that can respond to anti-natalism may be seen in part as the “preparation” that she describes (Section 5).
When anti-natalism is taken as the premise, the response from education to the new beings that are born is crucial. This is because these new beings, born despite the fact that it would be better for them never to have been born, have grounds for improving their lives and living better in the places where they live. This is made clear by denying the “good” of being born. Education is not all affirmation or negation. While aware of this, education that responds to anti-natalism needs to think. When we take the position of denying the “good” of birth, a new perspective is given to education. This is the significance of this paper.
