Browsing by Subject "non-existence"

While the subject of harm is a large topic in philosophy, often our intuitions seem to be quite well versed in determining when harm is caused and who is responsible. If I can’t be bothered to vaccinate my child and as a consequence, my child gets sick, it’s rather clear that I harmed my child. Even though I didn’t necessarily mean for my child to be infected, if I knowingly refuse a vaccine meant to prevent said illness, I have failed in my parental duties. The situation becomes more troublesome, however, if the child hasn’t been born yet. If a prospective mother is not yet pregnant, but intends to have a child. Do they have a duty to make sure that they don’t have any curable hereditary diseases, before having a child? In other words, would they act immorally if they had such a disease, but nevertheless decided to have a child? This question is at the heart of what is called the non-identity problem, since while intuitively we’d answer yes, there seems to be a good case for claiming the opposite. In the first chapter, I present the non-identity problem, its central claim and some attempts at solving it. Failing to find a suitable one, I move on to anti-natalism – a view claiming that procreation is immoral – which seems to solve the problem rather easily. Considering the extreme nature of the view however, in the second chapter I respond to some common objections the view is often met with. Among these are those which attempt to reject anti-natalism by appealing to the rights of those already existing and those that mistakenly claim the view to be misanthropic. Having responded to these arguments, I move on to discussing anti-natalism more thoroughly in the third chapter. I evaluate the main arguments for the view made by David Benatar, one of the biggest contemporary defenders of anti-natalism, though ultimately I champion Seana Shiffrin’s argument about consent as the most plausible way forward. In the fourth chapter the actual solution is revealed: if procreation with a reasonable expectation of harm is immoral, it’s immoral to reproduce knowing that one has a curable inheritable disease. On the whole, I find that while anti-natalism indeed solves the non-identity problem, it does so with considerable expense. This is due to the fact that even if we are unable to defeat anti-natalism, the view is simply far too demanding to ever be adopted – it would lead to human extinction after all. As such, it solving the non-identity problem is hardly a perk big enough to convince us.