Insurmountable Problem of Non-identity - Assignment Example

NON-IDENTITY PROBLEM Non-identity problem relates to the effect of the choices made in present on the future people. Future People are the people who are non-existent today but will live in future. The actions taken by people in present can either affect the identity or the number of the future people and moral principles require thinking about the effects of actions undertaken in present on the future people. Parfit relates that any act would result in three choices: 1. Same people will exist regardless of action taken. 2. Different people will exist but their number will be the same. 3. Different people will exist and their number will be different. To understand the Non Identity Problem in detail, consider an example: A 14-year-old girl wants to have a child. Since she is quite young she will give a bad start to her child, which would affect his future, though his life may be worth living. Instead if she waits for some time and then conceives, in that case she will be able to provide a better start to this different child. The objection to the girl’s having a child at a young age of 14 years raises the Non Identity problem as in both cases different individual will come into existence, as per the Time Dependence Claim in which, Parfit suggests that if a person is not conceived when he was in fact conceived then he would have never existed. The individuals conceived at different times will have different identities although they have same parents. Consider another example: Every community has access to various kinds of resources regarding which it decides to either conserve or deplete these resources. In case the community decides to deplete the resources, the next two centuries will have higher quality of life but later on for many centuries the quality of life will be lower than it would have been if conservation path were followed. The moral reasoning for not choosing depletion leads to the Non Identity problem. In order to provide moral reasoning Parfit states: The Same Number Quality Claim or Q- It states that, if in either of the two possible outcomes the same number of people would survive, it would be worse if those who live have lower quality of life or are worse off, than those who would have lived. ( p360) No Difference Act- It makes no difference to the morality of an act whether the same people or different people will have existed if people in present, act otherwise. ( p367-368 ) Solution of Non Identity Problem Same Number Choice The solution proposed by Parfit for Non Identity problem makes use of these moral principles in the cases where same numbers of people exist. Case 1- Consider the case of 14-year-old girl who, wished to have a child. The child she brings into the world at this age would get a bad start rather than the child she decides to have 10 years or few more years later which means the child born in present case will be worse off than that which would have lived and hence the explanation can be used to prevent the girl from undertaking the action which could affect the identity of her child. Thus Q can be utilized to solve the non-identity problem in this case where the same number of people will exist. Case 2 - Similarly, consider the case of utilization of resources in a community. If same number of people exist in both the cases, whether depletion or conservation of resources is selected, then the choice of depletion of resources would make the next few generations (say 100 years) have higher quality of life than the choice of conservation. But it would leave the future generations with lower quality of life as compared to those who would have lived if conservation were chosen. Clearly the moral principle Q can be used to solve non identity problem here, by considering that, with depletion as a choice the people of next centuries ( beyond 100 years) will be worse off in comparison to those who would live if conservation were chosen. But if, the cause to exist is thought to be benefiting, then the future generations living as a result of the selection of depletion choice are being benefited by this decision, so neither of the choices is worse. Hence Parfit employs No Difference view in this case. In order to simplify things Parfit states, Person Affecting View or V, which says, it will be worse if people are affected for the worse. He concludes that in same people choices Q and V coincide. But in the same number choice, where Q and V are at conflict, Q is accepted over V according to the No Difference view. This can be explained by considering the example of resources, where Q implies depletion is bad as it lowers the quality of life in future generations but since it causes these people to exist No Difference view is adopted. It is worth noting that V implies conservation is wrong as depletion makes no body worse off but conservation does affect lives in earlier generations. It must also be noted that Q does not hold for different number choice. In case the cause to exist is not a benefit then any theory with person affecting form would suggest considering morality of act whether same people exist or different people exist if acted otherwise. Parfit proposes that Theory X will solve the Non Identity Problem, which he asserts does not have a person affective form. He draws the conclusion about Theory X using the No Difference view and the assumption that cause does not benefit. According to him in the same people choice X will coincide with V where principle of beneficence will be followed. Otherwise in most of the cases V will be accepted but in cases where X and V are at conflict, X will be followed rather than V. So in the same number choice X will imply Q. Different Number Choice In order to explain the anomaly that arises in the different number choice Parfit uses an example. He compares two populations A and B as a result of population growth in one or two centuries, where B is twice as populated as A and hence they have lower quality of life. But life is worth living and more number of people live in B. While deciding which outcome morally outweighs the other, two choices arise: First Choice - If people are worse off, this cannot be outweighed by increased number of people living. The Impersonal Average Principle, which states that if the other things are equal, the best outcome is the one in which people’s lives go best, on average, supports this belief. Second Choice - The increased number of people living outweighs the loss in the quality of life, which is based on the view that overall quantity of happiness increases with increase in the number of people. This appeals to the Impersonal Total Principle that states if other things are equal, the best outcome is the one in which there would be the greatest quantity of whatever makes worth living. But here if an extreme version of B is considered where the population becomes so large that the lives of people is barely worth living then the Impersonal Total Principle implies to the Repugnant Conclusion. It states that for a population with a very high quality of life, there must be another larger population for the people of which life is barely worth living, if other things are considered equal. In order to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion, it becomes necessary to ignore the Impersonal Total Principle which appeals to the principle of beneficence. Hence the necessity to find Theory X arises in this case as well. Read More