Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
exist in one outcome do not exist in the other outcome. This challenge
to the Person-Affecting Restriction has been labelled the Non-Identity
Problem, because the beings that exist in both outcomes are not iden-
tical. No particular individual that exists in one outcome could possibly
exist in the other outcome. In those cases, the outcome that seems to be
preferable in terms of welfare does not benefit anybody.
Are those cases a reason for dismissing the Person-Affecting Restriction?
No, they are not, or so I will argue. A wide interpretation of the Person-
Affecting Restriction avoids the Non-Identity Problem. According to the
Wide Person-Affecting Restriction, what matters in the evaluation of
outcomes are indeed
harms and benefits to sentient beings
. However, the
view does not focus on harms and benefits to
particular individuals
, but
rather on harms and benefits to sentient beings
whoever they are
. The
Wide Person-Affecting Restriction can be defended against possible criti-
cism. It has advantages above the Narrow Person-Affecting Restriction.
The Wide Person-Affecting Restriction is a possible view about what
matters in the evaluation of outcomes.
As we will see, the Wide Person-Affecting Restriction can avoid the
Non-Identity Problem. Hence, the Non-Identity Problem is no reason for
dismissing the view that outcomes should be evaluated in terms of harms
and benefits to sentient beings rather than in terms of the quantity of
welfare as such. Therefore, as we will see, the second assumption that the
Prior Existence View needs in order to be a coherent view within utili-
tarianism, namely the assumption that outcomes should be evaluated in
terms of harms and benefits for sentient beings, can be defended. Given
this conclusion and the conclusion of the previous chapter, both necessary
assumptions for Prior Existence Utilitarianism can be defended. Hence,
the conclusion will be that the Prior Existence View is a coherent utili-
tarian view about whose welfare to count in the aggregation of welfare.
2 The non-identity problem
As we have seen, the Person-Affecting Restriction evaluates actions in
terms of the difference they make for the welfare of sentient beings. What
matters, according to the Person-Affecting Restriction, is in how far sentient
beings are made better or worse off. I will now introduce what counts as
the major challenge to this view on the evaluation of outcomes.
Derek Parfit has famously explored what he called the Non-Identity
Problem. This problem refers to the fact that some of our choices that
affect the welfare of people also affect their identity. In other words, the
compared outcomes differ not only as to how well off existing people
Search WWH ::
Custom Search