Non-identity Problem Research Articles

The Nonidentity Problem is an Artifact of Faulty Causal Reasoning

This paper argues that the nonidentity problem is really an artifact of faulty causal reasoning. In order to solve the nonidentity problem, we must determine that an agent causes a loss of happiness to another agent by means of an action that also causes the victim to exist. Woodward’s (2003) test for actual causation yields just this result. Equally crucial to solving the problem is the recognition that harms must be intentional and that intentionality is a function of norm-violation; this latter position is defended by Holton (2010). That the solution proposed is adequate is defended on the grounds that it yields intuitively correct judgments for a host of imaginary scenarios contemplated by theorists focused on determining what should count as harms.

Can Social Groups Be Units of Normative Concern?

In social justice theory, it seems both important, but also potentially normatively and metaphysically suspect, to treat social groups as units of normative concern. This is also the source of much current controversy surrounding social justice politics. I argue that normative individualism is a (correct) metaethical clarification, but not necessarily a binding guide for all other (non-metaethical) normative theory or practice in the way we might assume. Supra-individual social entities can, in fact, be the irreducible subjects of concern in valid normative evaluations or prescriptions, owing to future-relevant causal properties. However, this idea is complex and requires careful elucidation. I address likely objections pertaining to group definitions, social ontology, conceptions of causation, counterfactuals, and the non-identity problem.

The Intuition behind the Non-Identity Problem

This paper examines a well-known non-identity case of a mother who chooses to conceive a blind child instead of a sighted one. While some people accept the non-identity argument and claim that we should reject the intuition that the mother’s act is morally wrong, others hold onto that intuition and try to find a fault in the non-identity argument. This paper proposes a somewhat middle approach. It is argued that the conclusion of the non-identity argument is not necessarily in conflict with our intuitive response to this case.

Climate Change and Non-Identity

AbstractWhat is the practical relevance of the Non-Identity Problem (NIP) for our climate change-related duties? Climate change and the NIP are often discussed together, but there is surprisingly little work on the practical relevance of the NIP for the ethics of climate change. The central claim of this article is that the NIP makes a relatively minor difference to our climate change-related duties even if we pursue what has become known as the ‘bite the bullet’ strategy: endorse a person-affecting view threatened by the NIP and not modify it in such a way as to evade the NIP. In particular I will argue that a harm-based view can justify the big-picture call for action emerging from the field of climate ethics. The key to reaching this conclusion is pointing out the consequences of our climate change-related decisions for people whose existence does not depend on these very decisions.

No Harm Done? An Experimental Approach to the Nonidentity Problem

AbstractDiscussions of the nonidentity problem presuppose a widely shared intuition that actions or policies that change who comes into existence do not, thereby, become morally unproblematic. We hypothesize that this intuition is not generally shared by the public, which could have widespread implications concerning how to generate support for large-scale, identity-affecting policies relating to matters like climate change. To test this, we ran a version of the well-known dictator game designed to mimic the public's behavior over identity-affecting choices. We found the public does seem to behave more selfishly when making identity-affecting choices, which should be concerning. We further hypothesized that one possible mechanism is the notion of harm the public uses in their decision making and find that substantial portions of the population seem to each employ distinct notions of harm in their normative thinking. These findings raise puzzling features about the public's normative thinking that call out for further empirical examination.

Beneficence, Non-Identity, and Responsibility: How Identity-Affecting Interventions in Nature can Generate Secondary Moral Duties

In chapter 3 of Wild Animal Ethics Johannsen argues for a collective obligation based on beneficence to intervene in nature in order to reduce the suffering of wild animals. In the same chapter he claims that the non-identity problem is merely a “theoretical puzzle” (p.32) which doesn’t affect our reasons for intervention. In this paper I argue that the non-identity problem affects both the strength and the nature of our reasons to intervene. By intervening in nature on a large scale we change which animals come into existence. In doing so, we enable harmful animals to inflict harms on other animals, and we put other animals in harm’s way. The harms that these animals will inflict and endure are foreseeable. Furthermore, since non-human animals aren’t moral agents, harmful animals cannot be morally responsible for their harmful actions. I argue therefore that by causing animals to exist, knowing that they will inflict and suffer harms, we become morally responsible for those harms. By engaging in identity-affecting actions then we take on secondary moral duties towards the animals we have thereby caused to exist, and these secondary moral duties may be extremely demanding, even more so than the initial costs of intervention. Finally, these duties are duties of justice rather than duties of beneficence, and as such are more stringent than purely beneficence-based moral reasons. Furthermore, this conclusion flows naturally from several plausible principles which Johannsen explicitly endorses.

The Non-identity Problem and the Psychological Account of Personal Identity

According to the psychological account of personal identity, our identity is based on the continuity of psychological connections, and so we do not begin to exist until these are possible, some months after conception. This entails the psychological account faces a challenge from the non-identity problem—our intuition that someone cannot be harmed by actions that are responsible for their existence, even if these actions seem clearly to cause them harm. It is usually discussed with regard to preconception harms, but in the context of the psychological account, it is also applicable to prenatal harms. Inflicting prenatal injury is widely thought to be morally impermissible, but if the injury is identity-determining on the psychological account, then no-one seems to be harmed—rather, the injury is responsible for bringing them into existence. Here, I argue that identity-determining injuries can routinely occur on the psychological account, and that this undermines the account. I assess Nicola Williams’ proposal to salvage the account based on a trans-world account of personal identity, and show that it is unsuccessful. I then show that Jeff McMahan’s embodied mind account of personal identity is also susceptible. I conclude that identity-determining prenatal injuries pose a significant challenge for the psychological account and its variants, and provide a reason for supporting alternative accounts that fix personal identity at conception.

Harming and Wronging in Creating.

The nonidentity problem (NIP) is a deep puzzle challenging the moral intuition that what is bad must be bad for someone. The first part of the paper constructs a new theory of harming, whereas the second part builds on the conclusions of the first to offer a new solution to the NIP. The first part discusses the neglected question of when a burden inflicted in the context of overall benefitting can be discretized as a separate entity-only when it can, is it possible to identify the burden as harm, and only then is it possible to harm in bringing into overall good existence. The second part explains how, in those cases where creating is indeed harming, we can use the logic of concept expansion to construct a concept of wronging that applies to creation cases.

Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques, the Non-Identity Problem, and Genetic Parenthood.

Mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) are designed to allow couples to have children without passing on mitochondrial diseases. Recently, Giulia Cavaliere and César Palacios-González argued that prospective parents have the right to use MRTs to pursue genetic relatedness, such that some same-sex couples and/or polygamous triads could use the process to impart genetic relatedness between a child and more of its caregivers. Although MRTs carry medical risks, Cavaliere and Palacios-González contend that because MRTs are identity-affecting, they do not cause harm to an existing human being, and our intuitions otherwise arise from the non-identity problem. Here, I review several attempts to address the non-identity problem, and propose a solution to the problem. Furthermore, I argue that regardless of one's stance on whether MRTs are identity-affecting, the use of MRTs to pursue genetic relatedness alone falls outside the scope of the medical profession, as they involve substantive medical risk for no medical benefit.

He Jiankui´s gene-editing experiment and the non-identity problem.

Genetic engineering has been a topic of discussion for over 50 years, but it is only recently that gene editing has become a reality. CRISPR biotechnologies have made gene editing much safer, precise and feasible. We have witnessed the first cases of human germline genetic modification resulting in live births, conducted by He Jiankui. In this paper, we will analyse He Jiankui’s case in relation to one of the most difficult problems in procreative ethics (or the ethics of future generations): the non‐identity problem. We believe that this analysis will help us to understand the ethics involved in gene editing and hopefully allow for a better, more philosophically grounded legislation on CRISPR and other gene‐editing technologies.

Human Germline Genome Editing: On the Nature of Our Reasons to Genome Edit

Ever since the publication of Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons, bioethicists have tended to distinguish between two different ways in which reproductive technologies may have implications for the welfare of future persons. Some interventions harm or benefit particular individuals: they are “person affecting.” Other interventions determine which individual, of a number of possible individuals, comes into existence: they are “identity affecting” and raise the famous “non-identity problem.” For the past several decades, bioethical debate has, for the most part, proceeded on the assumption that direct genetic modification of human embryos would be person affecting. In this paper, I argue that that genome editing is highly unlikely to be person affecting for the foreseeable future and, as a result, will neither benefit nor harm edited individuals.

Prenatal Injury and the Nonidentity Problem

AbstractI argue that, given certain prominent views of personal identity and prudence, the nonidentity problem, or a very similar problem, can arise postconception. I clarify and defend this claim by considering the implications of these views for prenatal injury.

ՄԻՋՍԵՐՆԴԱՅԻՆ ԱՐԴԱՐՈՒԹՅԱՆ ՀՂԱՑՔԻ ՍԱՀՄԱՆԱՓԱԿՈՒՄՆԵՐԸ/THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CONCEPT OF INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICE/ОГРАНИЧЕНИЕ КОНЦЕПТОВ МЕЖПОКОЛЕНЧЕСКОЙ СПРАВЕДЛИВОСТИ

The article presents philosophical thoughts which somehow limit the concept of intergenerational justice. Since the mentioned limitations do not apply incoherently, first of all, an attempt has been made to introduce the connection between the terms "intergenerational justice" and "responsibility". Reference is made to the issue of taking responsibility for future generations, as well as to the issue of future generations having rights, in particular to the moral doctrines that exclude the need for the latters. The article addresses Parfitt’s non-identity problem as one of the limitations of the concept of intergenerational justice. The work aims at identifying the disadvantages of moral doctrines built around the concept of intergenerational justice, pointing out the theoretical limitations, which in turn affect the practical field of the problem. One of the goals of the work is to raise the level of awareness on the topic among the public. The article reflects theories of justice, which uniquely presenting the clear imperative of the relations between future generations and present people, conclude that the topic of justice between generations is full of a number of gaps and limitations.

The Defective Character Solution to the Non-identity Problem

The non-identity problem is that some actions seem morally wrong even though, by affecting future people’s identities, they are worse for nobody. In this paper, I further develop and defend a lesser-known solution to the problem, one according to which when such actions are wrong, it is not because of what they do or produce, but rather just because of why they were performed. In particular, I argue that the actions in non-identity cases are wrong just when and because they result from, or reflect in those who have performed them, a morally dubious character trait.

No Harm Done? An Experimental Approach to the Non-Identity Problem

Discussions of the non-identity problem presuppose a widely shared intuition that actions or policies that change who comes into existence don't, thereby, become morally unproblematic. We hypothesize that this intuition isn’t generally shared by the public, which could have widespread implications concerning how to generate support for large- scale, identity-affecting policies relating to matters like climate change. To test this, we ran a version of the well-known dictator game designed to mimic the public's behavior over identity-affecting choices. We found the public does seem to behave more selfishly when making identity-affecting choices, which should be concerning. We further hypothesized that one possible mechanism is the notion of harm the public uses in their decision- making and find that substantial portions of the population seem to each employ distinct notions of harm in their normative thinking. These findings raise puzzling features about the public’s normative thinking that call out for further empirical examination.

Retrospective Attitudes and Non-Identity

Many philosophers think the non-identity problem undermines the ability for future generations to have been wronged by past ones. This problem has prompted a number of responses, some of which purport to vindicate the relevant claims of wrongdoing. However, I argue that a closely related issue remains even for those convinced by these responses. It is commonly thought that wrongdoing makes certain retrospective attitudes, such as resentment, fitting toward the wrongdoer. In this paper, I shift a familiar problem of future generations from wrongdoing to the fittingness of retrospective attitudes, and I show that a narrative sense of identity provides one means of addressing the puzzle of how these attitudes can be fi tting in non-identity cases.

Climate Change, War, and the Non-Identity Problem

Abstract This paper explores the relevance of the Non-Identity Problem to explaining the wrongness of causing climate change.

The Non-Identity Problem and the Admissibility of Outlandish Thought Experiments in Applied Philosophy

The Non-Identity Problem and the Admissibility of Outlandish Thought Experiments in Applied Philosophy

I Have Got a Personal Non-identity Problem: On What We Owe Our Future Selves

The idea that people’s numerical identity may sometimes be discontinuous over time initially appears to provide useful material for defending restrictions on putatively self-harming behaviour in a non-paternalistic manner. According to this line of thinking, sometimes a putatively self-harming act is, in fact, a matter of ‘harm to others’. Yet, in this paper I argue that if we, as we ought to do, take into consideration the non-identity problem, this challenges the notion that the agent at T1 is in fact imposing harm on anyone, even when we accept that he or she is numerically different from the agent at T2. If the life of the agent at T2 is still worth living, the agent is not worse off than he or she would have been in spite of the consequences pertaining to the putatively self-harming act since he or she would otherwise never have come into existence. In this way, the argument I put forward in this paper calls in question the ability of the shifting identity argument to actually justify imposing restrictions on self-harming behaviour.

Solving the Non-Identity Problem: A Reply to Gardner, Kumar, Malek, Mulgan, Roberts and Wasserman

Solving the Non-Identity Problem: A Reply to Gardner, Kumar, Malek, Mulgan, Roberts and Wasserman