Skip to content

Is Existence a Gift or a Curse? A Comparative Philosophical Analysis

Published by mayankkashyap on April 2, 2025

Introduction:
Is bringing someone into existence a benevolent gift or a selfish imposition of suffering? This profound question has been explored across diverse philosophical and ethical traditions. Some argue life is a precious gift we bestow (or force) upon others, while others contend it can be a burdensome curse we impose for our own reasons. In the analysis below, we compare perspectives from existentialism, antinatalism, major religious worldviews, and moral philosophy (utilitarian and Kantian ethics). Each tradition offers a nuanced view on the value of existence and the ethics of creating new life.

Existentialist Perspectives (Sartre & Camus)

Jean-Paul Sartre – Freedom as Burden and Empowerment: Sartre’s existentialism posits that life has no preset meaning – “existence precedes essence” (On Sartre’s Existentialism and the Meaning of Human Existence – Philosophy in Film). Humans find themselves thrown into existence and must create their own purpose. Sartre famously said man is “condemned to be free” – having no choice but to be free and responsible for all his actions (On Sartre’s Existentialism and the Meaning of Human Existence – Philosophy in Film). This radical freedom is accompanied by anguish and anxiety, suggesting existence can feel like a heavy burden rather than an obvious gift. Yet, Sartre does not deem life a curse. Because we are free, we can choose meaning and values for ourselves. In fact, Sartre’s view of freedom is ultimately optimistic: although we bear responsibility we never asked for, that very freedom is what allows us to live authentically. As one commentator notes, for Sartre humans are “condemned to be free” but this state is “more of a gift than a curse” in that it enables personal meaning and moral choice (On Sartre’s Existentialism and the Meaning of Human Existence – Philosophy in Film). In short, existentialism doesn’t label existence strictly as gift or curse – it is a neutral fact, upon which individuals impose value through their freedom and choices. The “gift,” in Sartre’s eyes, is the opportunity to define one’s own essence, even if that gift is forced upon us without consent.

Albert Camus – The Absurd: Revolt against a Possible Curse: Camus, often associated with existentialism (though he preferred “absurdism”), highlighted the inherent absurdity of life. We crave meaning in a indifferent universe, which can make existence feel futile or even oppressive. Camus begins The Myth of Sisyphus by asking whether life’s absurdity might justify suicide – essentially, is living worth the trouble or is it a curse? (Albert Camus on suicide, absurdity, and the meaning of life – Big Think) He concludes that even without inherent meaning, we must not succumb to despair. Camus portrays the mythic figure Sisyphus – condemned by the gods to roll a boulder uphill for eternity – as an image of the human condition. Despite this seemingly cursed existence, Sisyphus can find contentment through defiance. “One must imagine Sisyphus happy,” Camus famously writes (The Myth of Sisyphus – Wikipedia), because “the struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart” (The Myth of Sisyphus – Wikipedia). In other words, even if existence was “forced” and absurd, Camus urges an attitude of rebellion and joy in living. Life’s lack of inherent purpose doesn’t make it a valueless curse; rather, each person can choose to affirm life by embracing the struggle and savoring simple joys. Thus, from an absurdist-existential perspective, existence is neither a clear-cut gift nor a curse – it is an absurd reality that we can accept and transform through our own courage and passion for life.

Antinatalist Perspective (David Benatar & Pessimism)

David Benatar – Existence as Harm (“Better Never to Have Been”): In stark contrast to life-affirming views, antinatalism argues that bringing new life into the world is morally problematic. Contemporary philosopher David Benatar is a leading voice here. In Better Never to Have Been, he argues “sentient beings are harmed when they are brought into existence, and it is therefore wrong to procreate.” (Better Never to Have Been – Wikipedia) Benatar’s reasoning is that life inherently involves significant suffering, and even happy lives have pains and risks that nonexistence would avoid. He presents an asymmetry: the presence of pain is bad, and the absence of pain (by not being born) is good – even if no one benefits from that absence. By contrast, the presence of pleasure is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad unless someone exists to be deprived of it (Better Never to Have Been – Wikipedia). This means that an unborn person misses no joys (since there is no person to miss them), but by being born they inevitably endure some suffering. Therefore, in Benatar’s view, existence is not a “gift” at all, but a net harm – essentially a curse or injury we impose on a person for our own reasons. He concludes that coming into existence is “always a serious harm” and that not creating new people spares them pain with no real loss of pleasure (Better Never to Have Been – Wikipedia). Ethically, Benatar holds it is better not to have children, since “every person is severely harmed by being brought into existence” ([PDF] Critical Study David Benatar. Better Never To Have Been: The Harm …). This stark stance frames procreation as a selfish act: no matter how good one’s intentions, one is forcing life (and thus inevitable suffering) on someone without their consent.

Schopenhauer and Philosophical Pessimism: Antinatalism has roots in earlier pessimistic philosophies, notably Arthur Schopenhauer in the 19th century. Schopenhauer viewed life as suffused with suffering and frustration. He even mused that if rational consideration alone guided us, we might decide not to inflict existence on others. “If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist?” he asks, suggesting a truly compassionate person might “spare [the next generation] the burden of existence” rather than “impose that burden upon it in cold blood.” (If children were brought into the world by an act of pure…). This quote captures the essence of the antinatalist sentiment in vivid terms. To Schopenhauer, life was so full of misery that not forcing it on someone could be seen as an act of mercy. In summary, the antinatalist/pessimist angle decidedly sees existence as closer to a curse than a gift. Procreation is viewed as ethically dubious – a selfish imposition of life’s burdens on another soul. The “gift” of life in this view is an unwanted gift, one that the receiver (the child) might later justifiably resent because they had no choice in the matter.

Christian Perspective (Life as Sacred Gift)

In Christian thought, existence is emphatically considered a gift from a loving God rather than a curse. Most branches of Christianity teach that God intentionally creates each soul out of love, and thus life itself is inherently good and purposeful. For example, the Bible affirms that human life is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and is part of God’s plan. One Christian ethics source summarizes: “the Bible teaches that every human life is a gift from God, an absolute value from conception until its natural end.” (The Value of Human Life – Christian Life Resources) Life is bestowed by the Creator and thus to be treasured. From this standpoint, even though no one consents to be born, our existence is not viewed as something cruelly imposed; rather it’s part of God’s benevolent design.

Christianity also acknowledges the reality of suffering in life – often attributing it to the fallen state of the world (original sin). Life on earth is sometimes described as a trial or a “vale of tears” that humans pass through. Yet, crucially, Christian theology gives suffering a redemptive or meaningful role (as in the suffering of Christ leading to salvation). This means that while life includes hardship, it is ultimately oriented toward a greater good (spiritual growth, love, and possibly eternal life with God). Therefore, a Christian would argue that it is better to exist than not, since existence allows one to experience God’s love and grace, and to fulfill a divine purpose. Acts of creating life (having children) are generally seen as participation in God’s creative work. The Biblical command “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) is taken as an endorsement of bringing new life into the world. Children are often called a blessing: “Children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward” (Psalm 127:3). Thus, far from a selfish imposition, procreation in Christianity is viewed as a selfless, loving act – giving the gift of life and raising a child in faith and care.

Ethically, Christians usually reject the idea of refusing life to spare suffering. Life is seen as sacred: one should not end an innocent life, nor reject life’s potential based on fear of pain. As one Christian writer states, we should not use human judgment to end life just because its “quality” seems low, since “we will not use our Christian freedom to end God’s gift of life because we judge the quality to be poor.” (The Value of Human Life – Christian Life Resources) In essence, for Christianity, existence is a blessing. Even though that gift of life is “forced” upon each person without their prior consent (no soul exists to consent beforehand in Christian doctrine), believers hold that life is ultimately a loving opportunity – to know God, to love and be loved, and to work toward salvation. The curse, in this view, is not existence itself but the suffering or sin that can accompany it, and even those are to be overcome rather than avoided by not existing.

Buddhist Perspective (Samsara as Burden vs. Opportunity)

Buddhist philosophy offers a nuanced view that in some ways casts existence as a burden, yet also sees a potential positive in human rebirth. Central to Buddhism is the recognition that life in the cycle of reincarnation (known as samsāra) is characterized by suffering (dukkha). The Buddha’s first Noble Truth states that “birth is suffering; aging is suffering; sickness is suffering; death is suffering…” (1. The Truth of Suffering – The Wisdom Experience). In a general sense, to exist in the world is to be subject to pain, loss, and dissatisfaction. Samsāra is often described as an endless wheel of rebirth in which beings, due to ignorance and desire, continually experience suffering. As a Buddhist source summarizes, “Samsara is considered to be suffering … generally unsatisfactory and painful.” (Saṃsāra (Buddhism) – Wikipedia) Worldly existence lacks any ultimate peace; it is literally a cycle of craving and dissatisfaction.

Given this perspective, one might say Buddhism leans toward seeing ordinary existence not as a wonderful gift but as a predicament that we are all stuck in until we attain liberation. The ultimate goal in Buddhism is nirvāṇa – the cessation of the cycle of rebirth and suffering. Nirvāṇa can be seen as an escape from the imposed existence of samsāra. In that sense, the highest good is not to exist in samsāric form at all. This resonates with the idea that existence (in the unenlightened state) is a kind of curse or at least an encumbrance from which we seek freedom.

However, Buddhism also provides an interesting counterpoint: within the generally painful cycle of existence, a human life is considered uniquely valuable. Buddhist teachings often speak of the “precious human rebirth.” Unlike hell beings, ghosts, or even gods, human beings have the right balance of suffering and free will to practice Dharma and attain enlightenment. Being born human is exceedingly rare and thus a fortunate opportunity – one might call it a gift in disguise. This means that while life is dukkha, it also offers the chance to achieve liberation from dukkha. In practical terms, traditional Buddhists do not typically shun having children; they view it through a karmic lens. A child’s birth is the manifestation of that being’s past karma seeking rebirth. Parents in Buddhist cultures usually see raising a child as a compassionate duty (one Buddhist text even describes how much gratitude one owes to one’s mother and father). There isn’t a strong notion that one should not “impose” existence by having children – although monks and nuns renounce procreation to focus on enlightenment, laypeople generally continue the family line.

So, is existence a gift or a curse in Buddhism? It’s both, in different senses. On one hand, continued existence in samsāra is a state of bondage and suffering – something ultimately to be overcome (not a gift to cling to). On the other hand, to already have the gift of a human life is an auspicious chance to walk the path to Nirvāṇa. Bringing another being into existence means they too will face suffering; yet it also gives them a chance to eventually attain enlightenment (which they could not do if they weren’t born at all). The ethics of procreation are not explicitly detailed by the Buddha, but the emphasis on compassion implies that one should at least consider the welfare of any life one brings forth. In sum, Buddhism views mundane existence (samsāra) as an inherently flawed condition – more burden than blessing – while simultaneously cherishing life as the vehicle through which enlightenment (the ultimate release from all burdens) can be realized.

Utilitarian Perspective (Consequences of Happiness vs. Suffering)

Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist moral theory, evaluates existence in terms of its outcomes: does a life contain more happiness or more suffering? From a utilitarian standpoint, creating a life is ethically right if it produces a net increase in overall well-being, and wrong if it leads to net suffering. Thus, existence isn’t automatically deemed a gift or a curse – it depends on the balance sheet of pleasure and pain.

In a scenario where being alive will bring a person predominantly happiness and minimal suffering, a utilitarian might say existence is a benefit (a gift) to that person. Conversely, if a life is likely to involve extreme suffering with little joy, then bringing that person into being could be seen as causing harm (a curse). This straightforward idea becomes complicated when we consider that before a person exists, there is no one to consult or to experience anything. Utilitarians have debated whether there is a moral duty to create happy lives or a duty to avoid creating unhappy lives. A common view, often credited to philosophers like Jan Narveson and Jeff McMahan, is that there’s an asymmetry in our moral reasons regarding procreation: We have a strong moral reason not to create a life that we expect will be miserable, but we don’t have an equally strong moral reason to create a life just because it would likely be happy (Asymmetry (population ethics) – Wikipedia). In McMahan’s words, “while the fact that a person’s life would be worse than no life at all… constitutes a strong moral reason for not bringing him into existence, the fact that a person’s life would be worth living provides no (or only a relatively weak) moral reason for bringing him into existence.” (Asymmetry (population ethics) – Wikipedia). In simpler terms, most utilitarians (and people generally) believe it’s wrong to have a child who you know will suffer terribly (since that imposes a curse on them), but not having a child who would have had a decent, happy life isn’t considered wrong in the same way. You can’t “deprive” a non-existent person of happiness. As Jan Narveson succinctly put it: “If we cause a miserable child to come into existence, there will exist a child who will have a justified complaint, while if we refrain from causing a happy child to come into existence, this child will not exist and so can have no complaint.” (Asymmetry (population ethics) – Wikipedia). This captures the utilitarian-leaning intuition that avoiding suffering carries more moral weight than creating additional happiness out of nothing.

That said, classical total utilitarianism might argue that, all else equal, more happy people do make the world better. If existence is generally positive, increasing the number of people who enjoy life adds to the total sum of happiness. This view would treat existence as a gift when it leads to a positive surplus of well-being. However, it leads to some famous puzzles in population ethics. Derek Parfit’s “Repugnant Conclusion” is one such problem: he showed that if we only maximize total happiness, we might conclude that a very large population of lives barely worth living (just above miserable) could be seen as better than a smaller population of very happy lives ( The Repugnant Conclusion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ). This strikes many as counter-intuitive – it questions whether adding lives that are just okay is really a good thing. The upshot for our question is that quality matters: utilitarians don’t consider existence automatically good; it must reach a threshold of “a life worth living.” If life falls below that (more pain than pleasure), then from a utilitarian perspective existence truly is a disservice to the person (more curse than gift).

There are even negative utilitarians who prioritize minimizing suffering over maximizing joy. A negative utilitarian might argue that because even moderately good lives contain some suffering, it might be better to not create new lives at all, to avoid any suffering. This echoes antinatalist ideas. Most utilitarians, however, would take a more balanced approach: encourage lives that are likely to be happy, and avoid or prevent lives likely to be full of suffering. In practice, this could translate to ethical advice like improving conditions so that if one has children, they have good lives (thus making existence a gift), and abstaining from procreation in dire conditions where a child would almost certainly suffer greatly (avoiding imposing a curse).

In summary, utilitarianism treats existence as instrumentally good or bad, not inherently one way or the other. If life will probably yield a net positive experience, then existence is a positive gift to that individual. If life will be net negative, then bringing someone into such an existence is a harm. The ethics of “forcing” existence thus hinge on predicted outcomes: we should strive to only create life when we have good reason to believe that person will, on the whole, be glad to be alive, and we should refrain when we foresee the opposite. This outcome-oriented lens complements the other perspectives by focusing on tangible well-being rather than abstract principles or intrinsic views of life’s value.

Kantian Perspective (Dignity, Autonomy, and Responsibility)

Kantian ethics approaches the question from the standpoint of duty, autonomy, and the intrinsic worth of persons. Immanuel Kant held that rational beings are “ends in themselves,” possessing inherent dignity. To create a person, then, is to bring into the world a being with unconditional moral worth. Kant did not explicitly ask whether it’s a “gift” or “curse” to be born, but we can derive insights from his principles about the ethics of procreation.

One key Kantian idea is consent and never treating persons merely as means. Clearly, a person who does not yet exist cannot consent to being brought into existence. Does this mean having children treats them as a means to the parents’ ends? Some contemporary Kantians have argued that procreation is morally problematic because it unilaterally imposes life on someone without their consent – an action that will profoundly affect them (The Kantian case against procreation – The Philosophy Forum). We normally consider it wrong to subject someone to significant risk or harm without consent, and life inevitably contains risk and harm (as well as good). However, unlike an action such as medical surgery, we cannot obtain prior consent from “possible people,” so procreation is a unique case.

Kant himself did not forbid having children; in fact, he saw it as part of the natural purposes of marriage. But he did emphasize that once you bring a child into the world, you incur stringent duties toward that child. He writes that we should regard “the act of procreation as one by which we have brought a person into the world without his consent and on our own initiative, for which deed the parents incur an obligation to make the child content with his condition so far as they can.” ( Are human embryos Kantian persons?: Kantian considerations in favor of embryonic stem cell research – PMC ) In this sentence, Kant explicitly acknowledges that the child’s existence was decided entirely by the parents (“on our own initiative”) and not by the child. Because of this, parents have a moral duty to try to ensure the child’s life is as good as possible – to compensate, so to speak, for having forced existence upon them. He further notes that “children, as persons, have by their procreation an original innate…right to the care of their parents until they are able to look after themselves.” ( Are human embryos Kantian persons?: Kantian considerations in favor of embryonic stem cell research – PMC ). This means that in Kantian ethics, life is owed care and respect from those who initiate it. While Kant doesn’t call life a curse, he implies it could be wrongful if parents fail in their obligations. It would be morally impermissible, for example, for parents to create a child and then neglect or abuse them (treating them as a means to the parents’ gratification or indifference), because that violates the child’s innate rights and human dignity.

Kant also believed that suicide (ending one’s own life) is morally wrong because it treats one’s own person as a mere means to escape suffering, thus undermining the respect due to our rational nature. This stance suggests that Kant valued continued existence at least as a default duty to oneself. By extension, one might argue that Kant would see existence as generally valuable (since it allows one to fulfill moral duty and develop one’s rational capacities). He likely would not agree with the notion that it’s better never to have been born – as that would preclude the very possibility of moral agency, which for Kant is the highest value.

However, Kantians would caution that motives for procreation matter. If a couple has a child only to satisfy their own desires (to use the child as a means to their happiness, or as an “heir” object, for example), that would be morally wrong in Kant’s framework. The child must be treated as an end in themselves. Bringing someone into existence is a grave act that must be guided by respect for the future person’s humanity. In an ideal Kantian scenario, parents decide to have a child out of mutual love and a willingness to raise that child responsibly for the child’s own sake – thus honoring the child’s status as an end.

In summary, the Kantian perspective does not frame existence as a curse; rather, it sees having been born as ultimately a condition that allows one to exercise rational freedom and moral judgment, which are the highest human goods. Life is the precondition for becoming a moral being – in that sense a gift of moral opportunity. Yet Kant recognises the moral risk and responsibility involved in forcing life upon someone. We have no direct duty to procreate in Kantian ethics (there’s debate on this, but generally it’s not a strict duty), but if we do, we have absolute duties toward that new person. So while not using the language of “gift or curse,” Kantian ethics implies: Existence can be a positive state (since persons have dignity), but one must only initiate it if prepared to uphold the child’s dignity and welfare. The ethics of bringing others into existence for Kantians centers on treating that act with profound moral seriousness – ensuring it’s never a frivolous or purely self-serving choice. The child’s lack of consent is ameliorated by the parents’ duty to act in the child’s best interests at all times. In a sense, a Kantian might say: life should be given only if one is committed to making it as gift-like (as beneficial) as possible for that person, so that the fact they had no say in being born does not turn out to be an injustice to them.

Conclusion: A Spectrum of Views on Life’s Value

Across these philosophies, we see a spectrum from life-embracing to life-skeptical views. Existentialists like Sartre and Camus see life as something inherently neutral or absurd – not designed as a gift or curse – and stress individual freedom to confer value on one’s own existence. They acknowledge the burden of existence (thrown into freedom, confronted with meaninglessness) but encourage finding purpose or revolt, effectively turning the potential curse into a personal victory. Antinatalists and pessimists stand at the far “negative” end: they argue existence is often a harm – full of inevitable suffering – and thus consider it ethically dubious to “force” life onto someone. In their eyes, non-existence spares one from pain, so not giving life can be an act of mercy, whereas giving life can be a selfish indulgence at another’s expense (If children were brought into the world by an act of pure…) (Better Never to Have Been – Wikipedia). Religious traditions tend to be on the life-affirming side. Christianity robustly answers that life is a sacred gift – even though life includes hardship, it is ultimately a blessing willed by God, and bringing new life is participating in divine love (The Value of Human Life – Christian Life Resources). Buddhism provides an interesting duality: on one level, it agrees that ordinary existence is fraught with suffering (a cycle one seeks to escape), yet it also cherishes the chance that existence (especially a human birth) provides for spiritual liberation. Utilitarianism evaluates life case by case – neither inherently good nor bad – focusing on outcomes. It highlights that if life will likely be good (happy), existence can be seen as a gift, but if it’s likely full of suffering, it might be considered a disservice or curse, and it emphasizes preventing severe suffering over creating new happiness (Asymmetry (population ethics) – Wikipedia). Kantian ethics views life through the prism of duty and dignity: existence enables one to be a moral agent (a positive), but since it’s imposed without consent, those who cause a life have strict duties to treat that life with the utmost respect and care ( Are human embryos Kantian persons?: Kantian considerations in favor of embryonic stem cell research – PMC ). This ensures that life, once given, is nurtured as the gift it ought to be, rather than becoming an unwanted burden.

In the end, whether existence is a “gift” or a “curse” is deeply tied to larger philosophical beliefs about meaning, suffering, and moral responsibility. For the religious and many humanists, life is intrinsically valuable – a gift to be grateful for, even with trials. For existentialists, value is not intrinsic but can be created – the gift is in our freedom, though it can feel like a weight. For utilitarians, value is experiential – if life brings more joy, it’s a gift; if more pain, perhaps not. For Kantians, value is moral – life creates a realm of duty and dignity, and must be treated as such, never as a means to an end. And for antinatalists, value (or disvalue) is weighed so heavily on the side of suffering that they conclude non-existence is preferable to existence, casting serious doubt on the idea of life as a gift at all.

By examining these angles, we see that the question isn’t answered with a simple yes or no. Each perspective teaches us to consider different aspects: the subjective experience of the one who lives, the intentions of those who give life, the metaphysical or religious context of why life exists, and the ethical obligations tied to creating life. This comparative view enriches our understanding of the profound responsibility involved in bringing others into existence. Are we bestowing a beautiful gift, or imposing a burdensome curse? The answer may ultimately depend on which lens we adopt – and perhaps on the life in question. What is clear is that creating a life is momentous, and thoughtful philosophy urges us to approach it with care, compassion, and humility, ever mindful of the delicate balance between life’s blessings and its hardships.

Sources:

Published inAI GeneratedDeep Research

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *