Skip to main content


Buy Article:

$43.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)


This article defends a controversial metaphilosophical thesis: it is not immediately obvious that “the best argument wins” in philosophy. Certain philosophical views, for example, extremely controversial ethical positions, may be intolerable and impossible to take seriously as contributions to ethical discussion, irrespective of their argumentative merits. As a case study of this metaphilosophical issue, the article discusses David Benatar's recent thesis that it is, for everyone, harmful to exist. It is argued that ethical and cultural “unthinkabilities” set limits to philosophical reasoning that even the most insightful arguments cannot transcend.
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Article Media
No Metrics

Keywords: argumentation; death; ethics; existence; life; unthinkabilities

Document Type: Research Article

Affiliations: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, P.O. Box 4 (Fabianinkatu 24), FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland, Email: [email protected]

Publication date: 2009-10-01

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more