The Nonidentity Problem #1 - Ethics | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY

In this Wireless Philosophy video, Molly Gardner (Bowling Green State University) introduces the nonidentity problem. This problem arises in cases where an individual appears to be wronged by the very action upon which his or her own existence depends. We’ll see why this problem has implications for reproductive choices, genetic engineering, and whether we should take care of the environment for the sake of future generations.

Help us caption & translate this video!

[SpencerThayer]

The non-identity problem is easily solved if you reject the premise that existence is better than non-existence. These are issues people with rose colored glasses have to resolve. The argument from an anti-natalist perspective is certainly compelling and makes the issues of non-identity moot. Additionally one could solve this by rejecting that any assertion either for or against the nature of existence can even be made.

[MariaK--]

I think that the fallacy is to believe that someone is better when they exist than when they don't exist. If they don't exist, they don't feel either bad or good. They just don't exist. Why is nonexistence bad and how do we really define whether a condition is worse than some other condition, especially in this case where there are no feelings involved? How do we know that it is better for someone to exist and be in pain than to not exist and feel nothing?

[thatchinaboi]

The non identity "problem" relies on the premise that an existence worth living is necessarily better than non existence, but this may not necessarily be true, as the premise itself is a value judgement. One may hold a contrary view, in which case, the non identity "problem" disappears.

[monkeyking]

This was already iterated in a comment below, but I think its worthwhile to point out that "existence" and "non-existence", while they seem to be related as opposites, cannot be compared to each other with terms like "better" or "worse". How can we know if not existing would be better or worse than existing? It's like saying, "Cars are better than green". How can we say if it is better to have cars or to have the color green? They cannot be categorized together. When we die, our consciousness ceases to exist, but we then have no way of qualifying our non-existence as being better or worse.

[Retromind]

Stopped watching at "it's better to exists feeling constant pain and illnesses rather than not exist at all". Now think about it very carefully...

[pmyou]

This is a fascinating problem that I have not previously encountered. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[HaranYakir]

One of the solutions is to reject 4). That is, bringing billy into existence makes him worse off than he would have been had he not existed. I'd argue that that is true for the vast majority of the people who ever lived and who are alive today.

[ishitasareen]

I was reading Benatar, and he just assumes that a lay reader knows about such complexities. But you explained it so well! I cannot thank you enough.

[Proxyincognito]

This rests on the premesis that not being born, is by definition worse than being born with a handicap, If this example is valid, it is not sound.

[StefanTravis]

Barbara is causing suffering. That the victim is someone who wouldn't exist without circumstances which simultaneously cause the suffering is a related issue, but a separable one. So who is Barbara causing suffering to? Obviously, her son.

What she's causing isn't harm by the usual definition, and we may decide not to call it harm at all. So we can either create a second definition of harm, or come up with a new word.

[DefenestrateWindows]

Those who do not exist do not have positive or negative positions towards concepts.

[TheBoxysolution]

Why can't you just look at the *intention* of having a child with poor health?

[noahhoag]

The cases are equivalent if Alice would not have had Alex if she was unable to reduce the quality of his health.

[DirtPoorWargamer]

This is only a problem because of the faulty logic that lead to a specific premise; You can not demonstrate that *_any_* life is preferable to never having existed in the first place, let alone this child's.

[JoelMillion]

Very simple,  the philosophy/definition of harm is wrong, also, Alex is a different person because of the pills his mother took, the Alex that exists with health problems wouldn't exist had she not taken the pills, they'd share DNA but almost nothing else. They're identical cases as far as I can see, you can say she harmed Alex by taking those pills but she in fact just created a different person just with the same DNA and Billy is also a different person. In fact every action you take on any person causes a different person to exist.This means we should define harm as something else, literally to produce a less "happy" result than you could without being selfless would suffice.

[g_green]

Would a Kantian framework provide a satisfactory answer? Since both mothers use their children as a means of garnering more attention for themselves, they reduce their children to a mere means to an end. Hence, Billy's intrinsic value is disrespected. Perhaps our moral intuition tells us that Billy's mom is immoral because she did not perform her actions in accordance with the moral law.
Further, what about virtue ethics. Perhaps ensuring that one's offspring suffer is not within the proper role of a mother.

[chriscanon]

This depends entirely upon one's own ontology. If someone doesn't believe that existence happens only once, that consciousness inhabits a body regardless of its state of mind or body, and not a unique thing, then both are equally wronged.

[williamwhitehouse]

I would resolve the paradox by taking "Harming the individual" (Which doesn't happen) to be a different thing to harming the system (for want of a better word). Having a health child is better than having an unhealthy child which is better than having no child. So while having an unhealthy child is good for the system overall and by the stated problem good for the child, it is not the most preferable state for the system and therefore can be seen as harming the system. Same goes for the polluting problem

[mackdmara]

Intent is what makes things wrong. If you intended to kill someone, but failed to kill them (you shot, but your aim was bad), you are still guilty of a crime.
If I make a good with full knowledge that it does not work, you have protections as a consumer. Why? Since my intent was to sell damaged goods, you are able to get your money back. When this is a person, not an item, (like a botched surgery) it comes with jail time, money compensation, and/or loss of my right to continue doing what I do (like loss of license). Little Billy is a man made item, and a person. A doctor, maybe Barbara, made him that way. Both Barbara and/or the doctor could face jail time, fines, or loss of privilege. His daily pain is a clear damage to him because she chose to do the damage. Also if Barbara and/or the doctor intended him to be in pain and fail (he is perfectly fine) they still are guilty. I personally would forgive, but that does not make it right.

[lenno]

Very interesting problem. My intuition would be to say that Barbara did not wrong Billy (thus rejecting the first premise), and I'd personally go with "Barbara having a healthy child" > "Barbara having sick Billy" > "Barbara having no child".