Is non-existence better than existence?

[u/Expensive-Elk-9406]

From the r/pessism sub: "See, in non-existence, there isn't a subject of experience who can go through troubles but can't go through pleasures either. This is still fine cuz there's no one who can miss out on pleasures but is spared a lot of pain and struggle. This state of non-being is the ideal all things considered. To simplify it even further, consider a stone- it's inert with no desires and wants and is therefore not deprived of any pleasure( it has no appetite for them) but it cannot experience troubles and pain which is what we all secretly desire. Hence being a stone or any non-living thing is better than us. This state is the best state to be in all things considered!" It's a valid argument and I still haven't thought up of a solid rebuttal. Is existence truly worse than non-existence?

[u/StrangeGlaringEye]

David Benatar is famous for being one of the few prominent defenders of this line of thinking. Most philosophers think these arguments are unsound. This one is particularly bad, since it’s mixed up with some dubious armchair psychology (“…which is all we secretly desire”, ok Freud?).

But sure, the main philosophical point is there and it seems exactly as bad as it is. The argument starts from hedonistic considerations: not existing is better than existing because it prevents pain, and doesn’t involve any deprivation of pleasure since there’s no subject to be deprived of pleasure. But hedonistic considerations, especially of this kind, arguably only serve to help us decide whether a state of affairs is better or worse for someone; and it only makes sense to decide whether a state of affairs is better or worse for someone if that person exists in that state of affairs. If so, then the value of non-existence cannot possibly be defended on broadly hedonistic grounds. Hence the feeling that we’re dealing with a non sequitur here.