University of Zanjan Philosophical Meditations 2228-5253 Articles in Press 2026 05 24 A Critical Analysis of David Benatar's Asymmetry Argument in Support of Anti-Natalism A Critical Analysis of David Benatar's Asymmetry Argument in Support of Anti-Natalism 735960 10.30470/phm.2026.2065764.2707 FA Mohammad Sadra Mohammadi Ph.d student of philosophy of religion. Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies. University of Tehran. ]قشد 0009-0000-6768-0627 Mohammadreza Bayat Associate Professor of Philosophy of Religion, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, University of Tehran, Iran 0009-0003-6873-4078 Journal Article 2025 07 13 David Benatar is one of the most prominent contemporary advocates of anti-natalism. His "Asymmetry Argument" is the central evidence of his defense of anti-natalism. According to this argument, the absence of harm is good, even if there is no one to benefit from this goodness. However, the absence of benefit is not bad unless there is someone who is deprived of it. Based on this premise, Benatar concludes that coming into existence is always a net harm because every person will inevitably experience harm in their life. Benatar's argument faces several problems: (1) The distinction between harm and benefit is unjustified, (2) alternative explanations with greater explanatory power are available, (3) proving the immorality of procreation requires a separate argument that is absent in Benatar's reasoning, (4) judging procreation must also take into account other human values such as "human dignity" and "the meaning of life," and (5) Benatar's argument relies on ethical utilitarianism, which is not necessarily the best moral theory. David Benatar is one of the most prominent contemporary advocates of anti-natalism. His "Asymmetry Argument" is the central evidence of his defense of anti-natalism. According to this argument, the absence of harm is good, even if there is no one to benefit from this goodness. However, the absence of benefit is not bad unless there is someone who is deprived of it. Based on this premise, Benatar concludes that coming into existence is always a net harm because every person will inevitably experience harm in their life. Benatar's argument faces several problems: (1) The distinction between harm and benefit is unjustified, (2) alternative explanations with greater explanatory power are available, (3) proving the immorality of procreation requires a separate argument that is absent in Benatar's reasoning, (4) judging procreation must also take into account other human values such as "human dignity" and "the meaning of life," and (5) Benatar's argument relies on ethical utilitarianism, which is not necessarily the best moral theory.