The nonidentity problem raises questions regarding the obligations we think we have in respect of people who, by our own acts, are caused both to exist and to have existences that are, though worth having, unavoidably flawed – existences, that is, that are flawed if those people are ever to have them at all.
What are the three incompatible moral intuitions that make up the non identity problem?
More precisely, the nonidentity problem is the inability to simultaneously hold the following beliefs: (1) a person-affecting view; (2) bringing someone into existence whose life is worth living, albeit flawed, is not “bad for” that person; (3) some acts of bringing someone into existence are wrong even if they are not …
Are cases of impersonal harm immoral?
harm to self & impersonal harms violate the h.p b/c even though one can consent to harm, certain acts like drug abuse & prostitution are illegal which makes it morally wrong.
What is the person affecting principle?
A person-affecting or person-based view (also called person-affecting restriction) in population ethics captures the intuition that an act can only be bad if it is bad for someone. A weaker form of person-affecting views states that an act can only be bad if it is bad for some existing or future person.
What is comparative harm?
Essentially, the counterfactual comparative account (CCA) of harm stipulates that an event is harmful when it makes someone (or something) worse off than s/he (or it) would have been had that event not occurred.
How repugnant is the repugnant conclusion?
The idea is that an addition of lives worth living cannot make a population worse. By parity of reasoning (scenario B+ and C, C+ etc.), we end up with a population Z in which all lives have a very low positive welfare. Thus, the final conclusion is that Z is better than A, which is the Repugnant Conclusion.
What is John Stuart Mill’s harm principle?
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. Mill wrote what is known as the ‘harm principle’ as an expression of the idea that the right to self-determination is not unlimited. An action which results in doing harm to another is not only wrong, but wrong enough that the state can intervene to prevent that harm from occurring.
What is procreative autonomy?
Procreative Autonomy. As a negative right, it would be a right against coercive interference in decisions regarding procreation. As a positive right, it would be an entitlement to assistance in procreation.
What is the counterfactual account of harm?
The dominant theory of harm is the counterfactual account, most famously proposed by Joel Feinberg. This determines whether harm is caused by comparing what actually happened in a given situation with the ‘counterfacts’ i.e. what would have occurred had the putatively harmful conduct not taken place.
What is a comparative account of harm?
Was Derek Parfit a utilitarian?
Parfit was thus a utilitarian, in the sense that ethical preference should be given to greater numbers, even if that implies a reduction of our self interest. He hoped for impartial and impersonal ethics.
