Non Identity Headache

The Non Identity Headache

Ethics and morality are the backbone of our society, taking different forms, whether it be religion, science, or other personal beliefs, it lays down a golden rule of what is and what isn’t acceptable. However, morality becomes difficult to apply to controversial topics, especially those such as pre-birth human enhancement and human reproductive cloning due to the fact that it applies to other humans. One of the most important topics that arise from discussing these issues is the Non Identity Problem. In order to try and provide reasoning for both pre-birth enhancement and human reproductive cloning, I will first explain what the Non Identity Issue is and its relation to genetics, then explain how it may affect one’s

Based of the Non Identity Problem reading, it can be classified under three general principles. The first is that future acts that harm the existing or future person are considered morally wrong. Therefore, acts that benefit future people cannot be morally wrong. Next, we must consider if an act does affect any future person, it is considered morally right to let a person exist, rather than let them not exist. If the choice causes them to be worse off, it is still better than not existing at all. Lastly, even if the action is considered morally wrong and harms the future person, it is still morally better to choose this action as opposed to denying this future person the right to live. The choice you are worried about will not affect the existence of these future people, but rather, it will only benefit or damage them but not violate them existing. (Serada, class notes). As Parfit states, “Since these two choices will be worse for no one, we need to explain why we have a moral reason not to make these choices. This problem arises because, in different outcomes, different people would exist. I therefore call this the Non-Identity Problem” (Parfit, 378). One of the caveats that exists for the Non-Identity Problem is that we cannot appeal to these future people’s rights for different reasons. For example, we cannot appeal to the rights of future people because there is no way we can communicate with them. Furthermore, we can morally make these decisions, even though they may be bad for some future people, on the assumption that they will have a life much better than ours (Parfit,