The Nonidentity Problem #2 - Ethics | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY

In this video, Molly Gardner (Bowling Green State University) discusses six different strategies for solving 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.

Help us caption & translate this video!

[lukemabe]

David Benatar must have been the worst at parties:

"Oh your baby is so cute Ms. Summer." says Julie.
"Thank you Julie." says Ms. Summer.
"What do you think David?"
" Your baby would have been better off not being born because no matter how much happiness, success, or fulfillment she has in her life there will always be suffering and just a little suffering can undermine so much fulfillment."
" Get out, David."

[MaskedIvalacianNamu]

The De Dicto sense clearly is the obvious one, because her intended actions were in De Dicto. She wouldn't have been able to act in De Re because she didn't know who the child would have been before he existed. In other words there was no reason to be thinking in the De Re sense anyway, and it's interesting to think about it, but in reality it's the overcomplication of absolutely nothing, (as it was quite obvious from the beginning common sense would've made them all assholes.) Regardless of whether the underlying claim could be made: "maybe she wanted his life to be harder so he could work through it well, " she puts a cripple on him, which he cannot remove whatsoever, and not simply showing him the pain of the world around him, which is what would've happened regardless of whether the parent who clearly lacks the ability to parent does anything.

[ishitasareen]

Great continuation of the ideas in the first part! You explained it all very well with those unforgettable examples. I will keep turning them over in my mind till I understand the concepts clearly. Thank you!

[unvergebeneid]

The question if nonexistence or a moderately shitty life is preferable is also really relevant for our treatment of animals. I tend to think that I would very much prefer eating lab-grown meat over meat from actual animals when both are comparable in quality. However, that basically means taking plants that would have fed animals and using them to grow artificial muscles in a bioreactor. So I'd be exchanging life versus non-existence for these animals, implicitly saying that they never having lived would have been the better fate for the livestock we are keeping now.

[tejasgokhale]

Benatar's solution beats them all. I wonder why you did it so hastily. May be it deserves a video of its own.

[valeriobertoncello]

I agree for the most part with David Benatar's position. Barbara surely shouldn't bring to life an unhealthy child knowingly. However, I don't think that this directly implies the complete immorality of procreation.

In fact, if you can reasonably assume that your child's life will be relatively happy (I assume that happiness is always relative), and if you don't know the way in which he will die (which could be without any suffering, physical or psycological), then giving life to such person is not immoral.

[jorgei.alonso]

I think that there's a trick being played in the harm based strategy. The reason why Vincent was not harmed by Andy is because he was going to be worst off either way. We would be using the word "harm" to both say that Andy did not make Vincent worst off but also using it to say that Stanley would have make him worst off.

If the metaphysics of harm depends on worse states, then it's really hard to see how Barbara could harm Billy without making him worst off.

I think that the actual wrong in this case is not guarding your heart.

Above all else, guard your heart,
for everything you do flows from it.
Proverbs 4:23

[handle]

This seems to miss a big reason to reject 1. We assume that the wrong has to be done to Billy, but surely society as a whole can be harmed by these actions - greater resources must be expended in caring for a disabled child (not limited to just Barbara) and we are collectively harmed by the distress we all feel from knowing that Barbara deliberately brought a disabled child into the world. This is similar to the harm I feel when I hear about atrocities being committed around the world - even if I am in no way personally affected. There is a collective harm.

I also disagree with Molly's rejection of 3. In her scenario Andy cannot know for certain that the victim was going to be shot anyway (even if Stanley told him he would, what if Stanley were to miss, his gun malfunction or he just change his mind). You can't compare a certainty (harm caused by Andy) with an uncertainty (possible harm caused by Stanley).

[puddingball]

The last view that coming into existence is more harmful seems off to me.

I don't know if harm is properly defined, but it seems to me that harm could be every event that threaten existence or procreation. That would mean that the amount of harm one recieves is bad way to define or measure the worth of existence. On the other hand I don't think that happiness is the opposite of harm. If the same thing prolongs your life over and over on the same level, you would get bored and unhappy, even though it removes all harm.

Maybe happiness would be better as a factor?

[DifferentName]

The De Dicto, De Re distinction works here because people aren't their DNA. We have two possible versions of Billy (or Timmy), one that's healthy and one that's sick, and we have two possible versions of Alex. The only difference is that the two versions of Billy have different DNA, while the two Alex's have the same DNA. Identical twins also have the same DNA, but they're not the same person. Choosing DNA that leads to a sick child is no different than taking medicine that leads to a sick child. It's just the tool used to achieve an outcome.

[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.

[korona]

I agree that the original desire to have a damaged child is where the moral pendulum swings here. The means to that end are somewhat of a sideshow. You can paint a stranger's house black and yellow stripes without harming anyone but the morality rests on why you did it in the first place.

[ericbarrus]

billy isnt billy . you could alter billys genes now or before he was born or have a conversation with billy that changed his outlook for good or bad . billy is a sum of factors and components introduce anything and youve changed everything forever.

[davidbentley]

I think that part/most of the issue here is that it focuses almost entirely on the outcome of the action, rather than the intention. I think ethics/morals need to focus much more on intention. Both parties here took actions which deliberately led to suffering and are thus equally abhorrent. The fact that they took different actions with different outcomes shouldn’t factor into it.

[daman]

If we are souls, does that solve this? Then, you can change which bodies come into existence, but you can't really change which person does, since someone exists before their body exists

[betht]

how does the De Dicto theory fail? I am not for sure if it was explained and I just didn't catch it but it seems like the most useful for future/real-world situations like what was described in the first video

[beauchang]

all of this is based on the assumption that existence is better than non-existence. I think the dilemma is a life of permanent suffering vs. a life that doesn't have any suffering because of the lack of the identity/being. wouldn't non-suffering be a better choice in any instances? we can look at the other end of the age spectrum at this too can't we? suppose we don't euthanize grandpa but he truly is in a huge amount of pain; is his existence better off because he is still sentient and exists?

[joegame]

i think the de dicto vs de re is an example of fallacy of equivocation?

[neoepicurean]

08:00 - Isn't the challenge already met in the denial of the Epicurean view of death?

[daleg.]

The problem here is that a civil law or economic rationale (whether one is made better or worse off) is being applied to a criminal law case. The woman deliberately underwent a procedure that would cause her child to be born sick. Deliberately making a child sick is child abuse. The state has a strong interest in criminalizing child abuse to punish the guilty and to deter future child abuse. The fact that the child wouldn't have existed otherwise is no excuse. The law doesn't permit doing harm to prevent a greater harm unless there is no other choice. The woman was not forced to make a choice between having a sick child or having no child at all. She deliberately chose to have a sick child rather than a healthy one. To show how absurd this woman's argument is, consider the following. Suppose that because of a law prohibiting genetically selecting for a sick child a woman who would have chosen the procedure decides not to have a child at all? Is the state responsible for denying the woman a child and for denying the child she would have had his or her life?