To be or not to be...

That is the question of my Value Theory philosophy class. Actually, the question is more to bring into being or not to bring into being, and neither of the outlooks is promising. We spent the first part of the semester focusing on bringing people into the world, but that leads to what the philosophers call the Repugnant Conclusion (because it is truly repugnant) that it is always better to have more people even if their lives are barely worth living. Now we are discussing not bringing people into the world, because as two of the philosophers that we read this week argue, it is always harmful to come into being. The argument as I understand it (which isn't saying much) is that only a living person can be harmed, which is bad, or benefited, which is good, while a person that does not exist cannot be harmed, which is good, or benefited, which is not bad. Comparing these two conditions gives existence a bad and a good and nonexistence a good and a not bad; a good and a not bad are better than a bad and a good, therefore it is better to not come into existence- thanks mom and dad! But seriously, who comes up with this stuff?!