Non-identity: a work in progress

So, to be honest, I've been understanding antinatalism in a very "natural" way. Don't get me wrong, the logic has made sense all through David Benatar's BNTHB and all the Facebook posts. I've just had a hard time understanding the grain of the opposition. I can say, that even after seeing the grain, I still see the firm foundation of the philosophy. The non-identity problem is an objection I'm getting to see more clearly.

[curatorbloggen]

I think in-depth understanding the non-identity problem makes a good antinatalist.

Non Identity problem = A long standing problem in ethics of explaining our EXISTING moral intuitions/attitudes towards future not yet existing beings: Why do most of us think it is wrong with full knowledge to create a person with some significant disability, let's say born predictably blind, when the life is worth living after all? How can we harm someone with a life worth living? (It seems to go against the interest of the future individual). This is the paradox.

Benatar says the non-identity (explantory) problem gains traction because of an ambiguity in the expression "a life worth living" we usually fail to appreciate. This sentence can really mean two things: 'a life worth starting' (about future person) and 'a life worth continuing' about an existing person. The former evaluation is much more critical. Therefore one can be harmed with a life "worth living", because it was not worth starting. Is life worth continuing? Yes in most cases, because death is bad (and to continue existing will usually decrease the badness of death).

Isabella Trifan's paper
Lives Worth Starting and the Non-Identity Problem
is well worth reading in my opinion and she mentions Benatar a lot.