Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T18:04:10.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is a person-affecting solution to the nonidentity problem impossible? Axiology, accessibility and additional people

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Melinda A. Roberts
Melinda A. Roberts*
Affiliation:
The Department of Philosophy, Religion and Classical Studies, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA
*
Email: robertsm@tcnj.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper considers two objections based in axiological considerations against the position that whether a given outcome, or possible future or world, is morally worse than a second world may depend in part on what is going on at a third world. Such a wide-angled approach to determining worseness is critical to the solution I have previously proposed in connection with the nonidentity problem. I argue that both objections fail.

Keywords

Nonidentity problemaxiologyaccessibilityperson-affecting intuition
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 47 , Issue 2-3: Special issue: Ethics and Future Generations , 2017 , pp. 200 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrhenius, Gustaf. 2015. “The Affirmative Answer to the Existential Question and the Person Affecting Restriction.” In Weighing and Reasoning: Themes from the Philosophy of John Broome, edited by Hirose, Iwao and Reisner, Andrew, 110–125. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684908.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boonin, David. 2015. The Non-Identity Problem and the Ethics of Future People. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broome, John. 2004. Weighing Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/019924376X.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, John. 2015. “General and Personal Good: Harsanyi’s Contribution to the Theory of Value.” In The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory, edited by Hirose, Iwao and Olson, Jonas, 249–266. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, Shamik. Forthcoming. “Essentialism and the Nonidentity Problem.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
de Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna, and Singer, Peter. 2014. The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199603695.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, Joel. 1988. “Wrongful Life and the Counterfactual Element in Harming.” Social and Political Philosophy 4 (1): 145–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 1986. Doing the Best We Can. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978-94-009-4570-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 1995a. “Adjusting Utility for Justice: A Consequentialist Reply to the Objection from Justice.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55: 567–585. 10.2307/2108439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 1995b. “Justice, Desert, and the Repugnant Conclusion.” Utilitas 7: 189–206. 10.1017/S095382080000203XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, Marc, and Voorhoeve, Alex. 2015. “On the Social and Personal Value of Existence.” In Weighing and Reasoning: Themes from the Philosophy of John Broome, edietd by Hirose, Iwao and Reisner, Andrew, 95–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtug, Nils. 2010. Persons, Interests and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavka, Gregory. 1981. “The Paradox of Future Individuals.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 11: 93–112.Google Scholar
McMahan, Jeff. 2006. “Paradoxes of Abortion and Prenatal Injury.” Ethics 116 (4): 625–655. 10.1086/504621CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulgan, Tim. 2006. Future People: A Moderate Consequentialist Account of our Obligations to Future Generations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/019928220X.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek. [1984] 1987. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1972. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Melinda A. 2007. “The Nonidentity Fallacy: Harm, Probability and Another Look at Parfit’s Depletion Example.” Utilitas 19: 267–311. 10.1017/S0953820807002609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Melinda A. 2009. “The Nonidentity Problem and the Two Envelope Problem.” In Harming Future Persons, edited by Roberts, Melinda A. and Wasserman, D., 201–228. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4020-5697-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Melinda A. 2011a. “The Asymmetry: A Solution.” Theoria 77: 333–367. 10.1111/theo.2011.77.issue-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Melinda A. 2011b. “An Asymmetry in the Ethics of Procreation.” Philosophy Compass 6 (11): 765–776. 10.1111/phco.2011.6.issue-11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Melinda A. 2015. “Population Ethics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory, edited by Hirose, Iwao and Olson, Jonas, 399–423. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Melinda, and Wasserman, David. 2017. “Dividing and Conquering the Nonidentity Problem.” In Current Controversies in Bioethics, edited by Liao, Matthew and O’Neil, Collin, 81–98. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smilansky, Saul. 2017. “The Nonidentity Problem: United and Strong.” In Current Controversies in Bioethics, edited by Matthew Liao, and Collin O'Neil, , 99–114. Routledge.Google Scholar
Temkin, Larry. 1987. “Intransitivity and the Mere Addition Paradox.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 16 (2): 138–187.Google Scholar
Temkin, Larry. 2012. Rethinking the Good: Moral Ideals and the Nature of Practical Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759446.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar