































91Issue VI ◆ Spring 2019

δι
αν

οι
α

REVIEW OF DISCOMFORT AND MORAL 
IMPEDIMENT (JULIO CABRERA)1 

MYLES CASEY, PH.D. STUDENT
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Julio Cabrera opens Discomfort and Moral Impediment by announcing his intention 
to cohere into a single philosophical system two regions of investigation that are 

often sequestered from one another in ethical treatises: a structural analysis of the 
human situation within the world, and the investigation into “the very possibility of 
morality and of a morality of procreation in particular,” these investigations informing, 
respectively, Cabrera’s bifurcation of the book (viii). The first part presents a structural 
and ontological framework, out of which Cabrera can derive, and ground, the practical 
and moral conclusions that he defends in the second. Cabrera believes that this move 
places his articulation of antinatalism on surer footing than those of other antinatalist 
authors—in particular, David Benatar—and as being more capable of responding 
to objections from both pro-natalist and “affirmative-ethical” theorists. Cabrera’s 
overarching project throughout the book is to dislodge procreation from what he 
claims to be “its usual position as a mere ‘natural act,’ or as an obviously ethical act, or 
even as the most ethical of all acts” (ibid). 

Methodologically, Cabrera freely utilizes various aspects of the “Continental” and 
“analytical” traditions of Western philosophy. From just a cursory glance at the book: in 
the first part’s structural analysis of the human situation, Cabrera draws on Heidegger, 
Schopenhauer, Sartre, and Nietzsche, placing them into dialogue with the Hispanophone 

1 Julio Cabrera, Discomfort and Moral Impediment: The Human Situation, Radical Bioethics, and Procreation, 
(Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019), 280pp., £61.99(hbk), IBSN 9781527518035.



92

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

philosophers, José Ortega y Gasset, Enrique Dussel, and Fernando Savater. Throughout 
his work, Cabrera manages to tactfully appropriate these existential arguments within 
an unmistakably “analytic” organizational structure, making use of “informal logic” 
(as Cabrera, himself, remarks) in deducing his ontological and normative conclusions. 
These conclusions are, in turn, in contradiction to those of Benatar, Kant, Singer, 
Dworkin, Tooley, and Nagel (to name just a few). 

Thematically, Part I begins with a brief outline of what Cabrera contends to be the 
most basic principle of traditional ethics, the “minimal ethical articulation (MEA).” 
The MEA is operative as the most basic, yet ultimately non-binding, aspect of the 
traditional ethics and acts as a “minimal demand” to consider, in the planning of our 
own life projects, the interests, feelings, and life projects of others, only insofar as theses 
others, too, consider the interests, feelings, and projects of others (2-3). This demand 
of the MEA, Cabrera argues, has priority over respecting the autonomy of others, 
helping, and refraining from harming others because we may encounter another whose 
interests, feelings, and projects are such that we should not respect their autonomy and 
should actively impeded the fulfillment of their projects (4-5). Cabrera then turns to 
more ontological considerations of human being, in chapters 2 and 3, to articulate his 
concept of “negative ethics,” the question of discomfort, and the status of “value” in 
human life.

The concept of “negative ethics,” in contradistinction to what he calls the “affirmative 
ethics” of traditional moral philosophy, is integral to Cabrera’s book, and this distinction 
is concomitantly developed alongside his structural arguments regarding the human 
situation in the first part, and presented as an alternative ethical framework in his 
arguments against procreation in the second. Cabrera’s articulation of “negative ethics” 
in chapter 2 serves as a prolegomenon to his antinatalist theses throughout Part II, and 
contends that it cannot be taken as self-evidently true that there is inherent value to 
human life—its truthfulness can only be established through a “slow and careful process 
of argumentation” (10). If it is not self-evidentially true, and has not been defended 
through rigorous argumentation, Cabrera argues that he is licensed to advance the 
opposite thesis: “[…] human life carries something like an initial structural disadvantage 
[…]that human life initially presents a valueless character or a ‘lack of value,’ not in the 
agnostic sense of not being ‘good or bad’ but in the sense of carrying from the outset an 
adverse value” (10-11).  The remainder of the second chapter presents a series of easily 
refutable, foil arguments in support of the adverse value of human.2  

The inconclusiveness of these approaches necessitates Cabrera’s ontological framing 
arguments in chapters 3-5. At the beginning of the third chapter, Cabrera presents 

2 In brief, the five non-structural arguments are the following: [1] that people suffer on a daily basis, both in 
mundane (e.g., a heartburn) and severe (e.g., torture) ways; [2] that many in the history of philosophy have 
portrayed the human life and the world as something degenerate that, through moral struggle, we can restore 
or overcome; [3] that humans, through metaphysics and religion, have often imagined an idyllic world to make 
suffering their current one bearable; [4] that a human life is not irreplaceable and that we can, in time, ‘forget’ 
about a deceased loved one; [5] that humans, generally, need the value and recognition of others in order to have 
a sense of self-worth, rather than produce it endogenously, demonstrates only an extrinsic value to life, and not 
an intrinsic one (11-21).



93Issue VI ◆ Spring 2019

Review of Discomfort and Moral Impediment (Julio Cabrera)

human being as having a non-exhaustive trifold structure—[a] human life, from birth 
has a “decaying” structure that can end at any point; [b] human life’s decaying-being 
is characterized by three kinds of “frictions’—physical pain, discouragement (i.e., the 
possibility of “lacking the will” to continue to be), and “exposure to the aggressions of 
other humans”; [c] the ability to react against the two aforementioned structural aspects 
by “positive value creation” (23). Cabrera calls this trifold structure of human being the 
“Terminality of Being” (24). 

In support of his concept of the “Terminality of Being,” Cabrera formulates what he 
terms the “Ser/Estar Distinction”: both are Spanish infinitives for the verb, ‘to be,’ the 
former, however, denoting a more ‘essential,’ structural, permanent sense of ‘to be,’ 
pertaining to “the being of life,” whereas the former denotes the more particularized, 
impermanent, and circumstantially contingent ways of being within the ‘overarching’ 
structure of life (27-28). At this point, one would not be remiss to immediately call 
to mind Heidegger’s Ontological Difference, which Cabrera does reference, but 
subsequently attempts to differentiate from his ser/estar by citing the incongruity 
between the Spanish and German words for being (ibid). Cabrera’s insistence that the 
ser/estar distinction is not Heidegger’s Ontological Difference is, however, specious. 
In his discussion of the role of death, Cabrera formulates the dual concepts of “death-
estar” and “death-ser” that serve functions to Heidegger’s ontical and ontological death 
(30).3 Further, in chapter 4, Cabrera conceptualizes the “intra-structural” (i.e., estar) 
“reactive” creation of positive values (35), which he later describes as a type of “flight” 
from the Terminality of Being (140), mirrors Heidegger’s analysis of the existential 
mode of Dasein’s being-in-the-world as “falling prey” or as “entanglement” [Verfallen] in 
§38 of Being and Time.4  The ser/estar distinction is, for Cabrera, a necessary condition 
for the structural discomfort argument, and for much of the remainder of the book. 
It allows him to maintain that, on the structural level of the being of human life (ser), 
there can be an “adverse value” to life, i.e., no positive value whatsoever, and yet, on 
the individuated level of estar, a human being can actively create positive values—a 
phenomenon that Cabrera describes as “living a double life” (30). Every activity and 
thing that does, or can, appear as valuable to a human being is only on account of this 
reactive activity of positive value creation on the estar-level of life. 

Turning to consider ethics within this structural framework, Cabrera defines, in chapter 
5, “moral impediment” as “the structural impossibility of acting in the world without 
harming or manipulating someone at some given moment (not, of course, everyone 
at every moment)” (52). He offers three classification types of moral impediment, 
but, most importantly, all forms of moral impediment are structured according to a 

3 Cabrera describes death-estar as “the kind of death that happens to us on a certain date from which we ‘cease to 
exist’,” and death-ser as “more directly tied to birth,” and as “a kind of ‘structural death,’ the gradual death that 
encompasses our ‘lives,’ the structural decaying due to frictions (pain, discouragement, moral impediment), and 
finally DE [death-estar]” (30). Compare this with the Heidegger’s analysis of ontological death in relation to 
Dasein’s care, angst, being-toward-death, and finite transcendence and the parallelism becomes apparent.

4 Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. Joan Stambaugh, ed. Dennis Schmidt (Albany: SUNY Press, 2010), 
p. 169 [S.Z., 175]: “Idle talk, curiosity, and ambiguity characterize the way in which Dasein is its ‘there,’ the 
disclosedness of being-in-the-world, in an everyday way. As existential determines, these characteristics are not 
objectively present in Dasein; they constitute its being. In them and in the connectedness of their being, a basic 
kind of the being of everydayness reveals itself, which we call the entanglement [Verfallen] of Dasein.”



94

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

complex, enmeshed web of actions wherein “many [ethical] wrongdoings are reactions 
to previous moral impediments within a web” and therefore cannot be taken in isolation 
(56-57). The Moral Impediment Thesis, perhaps the most significant argument of 
Part I, articulates the structural analysis of the Terminality of Being and the ser/estar 
distinction within the project of negative ethics. In brief, any act of positive value 
creation, at the estar ‘level’ of human being, is never an isolated activity but one whose 
situation is always enmeshed within a larger complex of other human actions, thereby 
making it impossible to consider all of the feelings, interests, and projects of every other 
(61). Therefore, Cabrera concludes, the human situation is structured such that moral 
impediment is not accidental, but necessary with respect to all intra-structural actions 
(62). 

In Part II, Cabrera works to extend and apply the ontological work of Part I to the 
realm of normative ethics regarding the morality (or lack thereof ) of procreation, 
childhood education, sexuality, abortion, and suicide. Though each chapter is thought-
provoking, I will only focus on the question of procreation (in chapters 9-12), which 
Cabrera describes as “the primary ethical question,” due to its centrality, both within 
this book and Cabrera’s wider corpus of work (118). In defense of even calling to 
question the morality of procreation, Cabrera frames the issue being “deeply motivated 
by a very strong and responsible concern for potential children, and for the risk that 
their emergence into being is the consequence of constraining and aggressive actions 
against defenseless human beings” (ibid). The act of procreation, Cabrera maintains, is 
for the sake of the parents, and not the child, in order to give the parents some ‘good’—
i.e., the joy, pleasure, or happiness of parenthood—which he describes as a mere act 
of the progenitor’s positive value creation, and one this is morally irresponsible given 
the aforementioned structures of the Terminality of Being and the Moral Impediment 
Thesis (120). 

In chapters 10-12, Cabrera develops what his calls the “PROC Thesis,” by recourse to 
two “minimal demands” of the MEA. Cabrera finds traditional ethical theory to contain 
the “do No Harm Demand” (NHD) and the “do Not Manipulate Demand” (NMD) 
(126).5 Cabrera’s PROC Thesis argues that, if the NHD and the NMD are indeed 
ethical demands, then procreation, as an intentional or unintentional act, is not ethically 
justifiable as it violates both the NHD and the NMD (121). He argues, first, that 
procreation is a manipulative activity, because procreation is an act of the progenitors’ 
creation of positive value, wherein the child is a means for that act’s satisfaction (129-
130). Cabrera then argues that procreation is an inherently harmful act because: [1] 
the structure of life is terminal, and therefore birth is a structural “disadvantage;” [2] 
in flight from the terminal structure of their beings, humans inevitably cause harm to 
others in order to survive; and [3] there is no structural guarantor of successful reactive 
value creation, and, in fact, many humans fail in this endeavor (139-140). 

5 Roughly, Cabrera explains the NHD and NMD as: Assuming the reciprocity of consideration under the MEA, 
we ought to pursue our projects, feelings, and interests only insofar as they do not harm any other, obstruct 
another’s own projects, or place any other in a situation of possible harm or constraint—when possible, we 
should actively try to rescue others from their situations of harm and constraint. Further, we should not 
manipulate any other in service of our own ends.



95Issue VI ◆ Spring 2019

Review of Discomfort and Moral Impediment (Julio Cabrera)

Cabrera considers a variety of objections to the PROC thesis, but directs most of 
his argumentative force against the position advocating an intrinsic value to life. 
Here, again, he invokes the ser/estar distinction, arguing that the majority of these 
“affirmative” arguments “forget” this very distinction, and consequently mistake estar-
level value in human life to be demonstrative of structural, ser-level value to human life 
(143-151). Further, Cabrera argues that these same objectors erroneously conclude, 
from the impetus for survival driving the process of positive value creation, that there 
is a structural vitality to human being, rather than regarding it as “a mere question 
of animal impulse” (147). Thirdly, even for “sensitive progenitors”—i.e., those who 
are cognizant of human life’s terminality, yet decide to have a child, in hopes that 
their child succeeds in positively resisting terminality(149-150)—procreation remains 
“one of the most powerful mechanisms of intra-world value creation, and therefore 
of postponing and distancing the terminal structure of being” (155). This, Cabrera 
concludes, raises the fundamental question for ethics: Do we have the right to procreate 
for the sake of our own resistance to our own inevitable decay of being (156)? 

Though Cabrera’s arguments in Part I, and what has been discussed of Part II may 
appear to be formally valid, the project as a whole appears to be contingent upon the 
success of, or the reader’s assent to, the structural argument for the Terminality of Being 
and the incommensurability of positive value on the ‘estar-status’ to its ‘ser-status.’ At 
least as how I understand it, it would seem that the possibility for positive value creation 
at the level of a particularized human being is not operative at the structural level, and 
is therefore created ex nihilo in all individuated human beings. In the development 
of his PROC Thesis, Cabrera states that he “agree[s] substantially” with the approach 
of “existential metaphysics,” in the tradition of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sartre, and 
Heidegger, only insofar as they endorse the “idea that there are constant and regular 
structures of human life, and that it is not true that every human birth begins from 
nothing” (152). Yet, here, there seems to be an explicit structural irregularity, or, at 
least, incongruity between the ser and estar designations of human being: how could 
it be the case that every human being is “forced” to engage in the creation of positive 
values without having any structural condition for the possibility of valuation, at all. 

On this question, Heidegger, whose ontological work features prominently all 
throughout Cabrera’s text, examines the fundamentally holistic being of human-being 
through its inseparable and non-distinct “multiplicity of constitutive structural factors,” 
which he calls “existentials.”6 Above, I indicated the similarity between Cabrera’s 
analysis of positive value creation and Heidegger’s existential of falling prey [Verfallen]. 
However, falling prey is the ontical modality of (i.e., estar-level), and presupposes, 
Dasein’s ontological structure of Sein-bei, translated as either “being together with” or 
“rendering things meaningfully present” in the world.7 In order to commit ourselves 
to the project of intra-structural (or innerworldly) positive value creation, there must 
first be, ontologically, the structural ability to encounter any-thing within the world 

6 Heidegger, Being and Time, pp. 53-54 [pp.53-54].
7 The former translation appears in the Stambaugh translation of Being and Time, whereas Thomas Sheehan offers 

the latter. See Sheehan, Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift, (Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield Pub., 
2014), p. 150.



96

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

as something that has been made meaningfully present to us, before we are able to 
appropriate these innerworldly beings into our projects. Cabrera, in discussing the ser/
estar distinction, defined a third term, “estanes,” as the “beings that ‘are there’ (material 
things, ideas, films, animals, institutions or numbers),” that we use for the purposes of 
positive value creation (27). 

Cabrera did not, however, locate the ontological possibility of our having these 
estantes as something meaningfully present and available to us, in the first place, 
nor, presupposing their meaningful presence, did he discuss why these estantes are 
even taken up within the process of positive value creation. On this account, then, it 
seems particularly odd that Cabrera dismisses human being’s “animal desire” to live 
as something wholly incidental in relation to the structural determination of human 
being, and therefore lacking in any intrinsic value (161). On further consideration, 
this “animal desire” appears to be the only possible way of reconciling the problematic 
spontaneous generation of human being’s entire familiarity with the notion of “value” 
and relevance at the estar-level. Yet this would cut against Cabrera’s thesis that life 
is structurally valueless by admitting of an apparent structural regularity of organic 
vitality. If admitted, this structural feature would ground the human capacity for 
positive value creation in an original, value-laden relation that one has toward the 
being of one’s own life, which, therefore, hardly appears to be intrinsically valueless. 
This, however, appears to challenge Cabrera’s original thesis—viz., that no thorough 
argumentation has been offered in support of the intrinsic value of human life—insofar 
as, now, the being of human life is the principle of value, or in other words, human life 
is structurally en-valuation, on which all consequent acts of particular value creation 
are contingent. Thus, given the ontological structure of Cabrera’s negative ethics, the 
aforementioned questions likely problematize Cabrera’s normative ethical conclusions 
about procreation, without, of course, amounting to complete rejection thereof. ◆



97Issue VI ◆ Spring 2019

δι
αν

οι
α


