hello again my name is Molly Gardner and
I am now an assistant professor in the
philosophy department at Bowling Green
State University in Bowling Green Ohio
this is the second in a two-part series
on the non identity problem in this
video I will survey some of the ways
that philosophers have attempted to
solve the problem recall from the
previous video that in order to solve
the problem we will need to reject at
least one of the four inconsistent
claims that generated it here again are
those claims one barbara wrong - Billy -
if barbara wrong - Billy then the way
she wronged him was by harming him three
the only way she could have harmed him
is by making him worse off than he
otherwise would have been for Barbara
did not make Billy worse off than he
otherwise would have been we can
categorize various strategies for
solving the problem according to the
claim that each strategy rejects let's
start with what we can call the wronging
without harming strategy this strategy
attempts to deny to the claim that if
Barbara wronged Billy then the way she
wronged him was by harming him here's an
example of the kind of case these
philosophers appeal to suppose that a
man named Smith attempts to buy an
airplane ticket but the agents at the
desk refused to sell him the ticket
because of his race later on the plane
that Smith would have been on crashes
and all the passengers died there was a
sense in which Smith dodged a bullet
now that the plane has crashed and he is
still alive he's no worse off and indeed
he is better off then he would have been
had the agents not refused to sell him
the ticket still it's also clear that
the agents wronged Smith when they
refused to sell him the ticket the
wrongdoing in this case doesn't seem to
be explained at least primarily by a
moral principle about harming instead it
seems to be explained by principles that
have to do with rights violations
unfairness or lack of respect for
example a rights-based principle might
that you wronged someone when you
violate his or her rights and unfairness
principle might say that you wronged
someone when you treat him or her
unfairly and a respect principle might
say that you wronged someone when you
disrespect him or her many philosophers
have argued that at least one of these
principles explains why Barbara wrongs
Billy in the non-identity case still
these philosophers have to explain why
Barbara violates one of these principles
and this is no easy task on first
consideration for example it's difficult
to see how bringing Billy into existence
could be a way of treating him unfairly
it's also difficult to see why such an
action is disrespectful and it's not
immediately clear what right Billy would
have that Barbara violates what if we
opt for a different solution to the
problem an alternative strategy would be
to reject claim 4 which says that
Barbara did not make Billy any worse off
than he otherwise would have been
philosopher Caspar hare has argued that
claims 1 2 & 3 aren't really plausible
unless we replaced the word Billy with
her child
he reconstructs the problem like this 1
star Barbara wronged her child to star
if Barbara wronged her child then the
way she ranked him was by harming him 3
star the only way she could have harmed
him is by making him worse off than he
otherwise would have been 4 star Barbara
did not make her child worse off than he
otherwise would have been
once we reconstruct the problem this way
we can see that something interesting is
going on the term her child has what we
might call a de dick doe sense and a de
racence in the de dicto sense her child
refers to whomever happens to fit that
description whereas in the day ray sense
her child refers to Billy to get a
better handle on this difference in
stances consider the following joke
actress Zsa Zsa Gabor tells an
interviewer I have found a way of
keeping my husband young and healthy
almost forever the interviewer says
eternal youth that is quite a discovery
how did you do it Gabor
replies I get a new one every five years
Gabor his comment is funny because it
trades on the two senses of my husband
in the day dicto sense Gabor husband
does indeed stay young and healthy
almost forever but in the day racence he
does not hara argues that in the day rea
sense her child makes claim for star
true barbara did not make Billie worse
off than he otherwise would have been
however Hera argues that the relevant
sense is the day dick docents not the
day racence and if we use the day dick
doe sense of her child we can see that
claim for star is false if Barbara
hadn't had Billie she would have had
some other child we can call Timmy and
Timmy would not have had poor health her
child Billie is worse off than her child
Timmy
so her child is worse off than her child
otherwise would have been the main
challenge that hair now faces is to
convince his critics that the day dicto
sense really is the sense that's
relevant to the non identity problem and
it's not immediately obvious that it is
let's look at a third way to try to
solve than identity problem the third
way is what we can call the biting the
bullet strategy and it attempts to
reject claim one the most
fully-developed argument for biting the
bullet is presented in the 2014 book the
non identity problem and the ethics of
future people by philosopher david
Boonen I highly recommend this book to
anyone who wants to read more about the
problem the argument Boonen gives for
rejecting one is largely negative that
is he carefully considers other
philosophers attempts to reject each of
the other claims and argues that none of
those attempts are successful since the
other claims logically entailed that one
is false
Boonen concludes that barbara does not
wronged her child and indeed that she
does nothing wrong at all
I'm not completely convinced by
bounnam's critique of my own preferred
strategy for solving the problem which
is to reject claim 3 recall that 3 says
that the own
whay Barbara could have harmed Billy is
by making him worse off than he
otherwise would have been those of us
who reject claim 3 adopt what we can
call the harm based strategy we contend
that it's possible to harm someone
without making him or her worse off to
see how consider the following case and
heed the assassin in training is hiding
in the bushes pointing his gun at
Vincent andis supervisor Stanley is
hovering next to Andy pointing his own
gun at Vincent
Andy fires his gun and kills Vincent if
Andy hadn't fired his gun Stanley would
have and Vincent would have died at
exactly the same time in exactly the
same way in this shooting case it seems
as though Andy has harmed Vincent
indeed he is killed Vincent and that's a
pretty significant harm nevertheless
Andy hasn't made Vincent any worse off
than he otherwise would have been since
if Andy hadn't shot Vincent Stanley
would have this case seems to show that
you can harm someone without making them
worse off but if harming isn't a matter
of making someone worse off what is it
the challenge for the harm based
solution is to develop an account of the
metaphysics of harming that can
vindicate our intuitions about this
shooting case the non-identity case and
all the other ordinary cases of harming
I believe that this can be done but the
jury is still out there are many more
proposed solutions than the four I have
just discussed an alternative way to
deny claim number one for example is to
hold that although Barbra does not
wronged Billy she does do something
wrong when she fails to bring a
healthier child into existence
instead of Billy the underlying
principle that this solution appeals to
seems to be something like maximizing
act utilitarianism the view that actions
are morally wrong unless they result in
the most aggregated well-being possible
however it's not clear that we can trust
maximizing act utilitarianism since it
seems to have strange results when it
comes to other procreation cases it
seems to imply for example
that it would be better to bring into
existence lots and lots of people whose
lives are barely worth living than to
confer benefits to a smaller group of
people who already exist in his 2006
book better never to have been the harm
of coming into existence the philosopher
David Bennett are also argues for an
alternative way of rejecting claim three
on his view whether an action is harmful
has to do with whether it confers
advantages or disadvantages Bennett our
claims that all the particular harms of
existence including the harm of death
which we all suffer eventually make it
the case that there's a clear
disadvantage to existing over never
existing at all on the other hand there
are no comparative advantages of
existence over non-existence even if our
lives are filled with lots of happiness
the absence of such happiness in a world
where we never existed would not be bad
he concludes that all acts of
procreation are harmful not just those
in non-identity cases as you can see
philosophers have put lots of thought
into solving the problem I hope that
this brief overview of a few interesting
approaches gives you some idea of what a
satisfactory solution would look like
thank you for watching
you