Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
made better off. Likewise, if the worse outcome is chosen, it is not the
case that a particular individual (de re) is harmed. Why should this be
problematic? Claiming that this is problematic seems to presuppose the
Narrow Person-Affecting Restriction, i.e. the view that outcomes should
be evaluated in terms of their harms and benefits for particular indi-
viduals (de re). However, as I have argued, utilitarians need not accept
this view.
Another criticism might be that the Wide Person-Affecting Restriction
opens the door to the Replaceability Argument. It might seem that
it does because it is not concerned with particular individuals (de re)
but rather with 'roles', so to say (de dicto). This might bring to mind
the Replaceability Argument, which can be framed, in line with the
de-dicto/ de-re distinction, as follows: 'Farmer Johnson's pigs (whoever
they are) are well off. He regularly kills some (de re) and replaces them
by others (de re). His pigs (de dicto) are always doing fine.' If the Wide
Person-Affecting Restriction sanctioned the replaceability argument, it
would seem that even Prior Existence Utilitarianism would not be able
to avoid it. Therefore, it is crucial to point out that the Wide Person-
Affecting Restriction should only be applied in standard Non-Identity
cases. Standard Non-Identity cases concern differences of welfare among
possible beings, i.e. beings that do not yet exist when the moral choice
in question is contemplated. Whether they (in the de re sense) will
come into existence at all depends on which outcome one chooses.
Standard Non-Identity cases do not concern the welfare of individuals
that already exist when the moral choice in question is contemplated.
So, for instance in the case of the 14-year-old girl, the choice whether to
conceive now or later affects the welfare of her possible child. The choice
when to conceive does not affect the 14-year-old girl's own welfare. This
is a relevant difference to the replaceability argument, which crucially
concerns the welfare of an individual that already exists and will be
killed in one of the outcomes.
5 Advantages of the wide as opposed to the narrow
person-affecting restriction
In comparison to the Narrow Person-Affecting Restriction, the Wide
Person-Affecting Restriction has the advantage of avoiding the
Non-Identity Problem. I will now point out some differences of both
views in particular cases. Subsequently, I will point out the advantages
of those differences from a utilitarian perspective.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search