MIT OpenCourseWarehttp://ocw.mit.edu 24.06J / STS.006J Bioethics Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.Bioethics Session 13 Handout: Non-Identity II Sometimes, by behaving in a certain way, we cause bad things to happen to people whowould not have existed if we had not behaved that way. For example, by ignoring herdoctor's advice Mary causes Mariette to be born with hemophilia, but Mariette would (most probably) not have existed had Mary heeded her doctors advice. The 'non-identity problem' is the problem of what to say about cases like this. The problem can be presented as a kind of paradox. A paradox is a valid argument whosepremises seem plausible, but whose conclusion is absurd or self-contradictory. Here are some famous paradoxes: The Paradox of the Heap P1 Two grains of sand, piled together, do not make a heap.P2 For any n, if n grains of sand, piled together, do not make a heap, then n+1 grainsof sand, piled together, do not make a heap.P3 A billion grains of sand, piled together, make a heap. C A billion grains of sand, piled together, do not make a heap, and do make a heap. The Liar Paradox Sentence S: 'It is not the case that S is true' P1 Either (i) S is true or (ii) it is not the case that S is true.P2 If (i) then S is true and it is not the case that S is true.P3 If (ii) then S is true and it is not the case that S is true. C S is true and it is not the case that S is true. The Non-Identity Paradox P1 If you don't harm anybody, then you don't do anything wrong. P2 Mary doesn't harm anybody. P3 Mary does something wrong. C Mary does and doesn't do something wrong. Which premise must go? The problem with rejecting P3 is that it seems to commit us to the view that we almost never do wrong by causing bad things to happen to future generations. The problem with rejecting P2 is just that Mariette doesn't seem to be harmed by Mary. So, says Parfit, we must reject
View Full Document
Unlocking...