Ethics: The Nonidentity Problem발음듣기
대기중
Ethics: The Nonidentity Problem
70문장
100% 한국어
번역 4명 참여
출처 : 칸아카데미
Ethics: The Nonidentity Problem
(intro music) Hi! My name is Molly Gardner, and I am a research assistant professor in the philosophy department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In this video, I will introduce you to the nonidentity problem.
To understand the problem, let's begin with a thought experiment.
Suppose that there are two women, Alice and Barbara, who want their children to have poor health.
This is, of course, a strange thing to want.
But suppose that they believe that if they have sick children, they will get more attention from their friends and family.
Now suppose that, to get what she wants, Alice takes a particular drug during her pregnancy.
The drug causes her child, whom she names Alex, to experience poor health for his entire life.
Nevertheless, his life on the whole is worth living.
Meanwhile, Barbara uses in vitro fertilization, and screens the embryos for a gene that causes poor health.
When she finds an embryo with that gene, she implants it.
The selected embryo becomes a child named Billy.
Billy experiences the same degree of hardship and suffering that Alex experiences.
However, like Alex, Billy has a life worth living.
Many people think that Alice and Barbara have both wronged their children.
The way in which Alice wronged Alex is pretty straightforward.
By taking the drug during her pregnancy, she harmed her child.
Since Barbara performed an action that had similarly bad consequences for Billy, it might be tempting to think that Barbara also harmed her child.
Nevertheless, there is an important difference between Alice's action and Barbara's action.
The difference is that, although Alex would still have existed had his mother not taken the drug, Billy is nonidentical to anyone who would have existed had his mother not selected for poor health.
After all, if Barbara had not selected for poor health, then either she should have not had a child at all, or else she would have brought some other child into existence, instead of Billy.
Many philosophers appeal to a plausible theory of harming, in order to argue that this difference in what would've happened makes a moral difference.
According to their theory of harming, an action harms you only if it makes you worse off, in at least some respect, than you would have been had the action not been performed.
Alice's action satisfies this condition.
Alex is worse off, in many respects, than he would have been, had Alice not taken the drug.
He has to go to the hospital more often, he misses more school and social events, and he feels more pain and discomfort than he otherwise would have.
However, Barbara's action does not satisfy this condition.
Even though Billy's life is also full of trips to the hospital, missed school days, pain, and discomfort, it is still worth living.
The alternative for Billy is nonexistence, and a life worth living does not seem to be worse, in any respect, than no life at all.
If so, then when she selected for poor health, Barbara did not harm Billy.
But if Barbara's action did not harm Billy, then we seem to be at a loss to justify the intuition that, in much the same way that Alice wronged Alex, Barbara wronged Billy.
Billy's situation is, thus, a nonidentity case.
It is a case in which an individual appears to be wronged by an action that is the condition of his own worthwhile existence.
The problem of either justifying the appearance that the individual was wronged, or explaining it away, is the nonidentity problem.
We can make the problem clearer by formulating it as a set of inconsistent claims.
One: Barbara wronged Billy.
Two: The way she wronged him was by harming him.
Three: The only way she could have harmed him is by making him worse off than he otherwise would have been.
Four: Barbara did not make Billy worse off than he otherwise would have been.
When I say these claims are inconsistent, I meant that they can't all be true together.
If you pick any three of the claims, their conjunction will logically entail that the fourth claim is false.
To solve the nonidentity problem, we have to reject at least one of the claims.
We also need to identify the flaw in the reasoning, or the intuition, that originally seemed to support whatever claim we choose to reject.
Notice that, whatever solution we opt for will have wide-ranging implications for a number of other issues.
One issue is reproductive rights.
Although few parents want to select for poor health, some parents might want to use new reproductive technologies to select for conditions that other people associate with poor health, unhappiness, or other bad consequences.
Opponents of reproductive autonomy in these kinds of cases will need to grapple with the nonidentity problem.
Another issue is genetic engineering.
Although scientists haven't yet produced any genetically engineered humans, they have produced plenty of genetically engineered animals.
The nonidentity problem raises the question of whether we are wronging such animals by bringing them into existence.
A third issue is the environment.
To see why the nonidentity problem is particularly important here, consider another thought experiment.
Suppose that we, as a community, must decide between two policies.
One policy involves polluting the environment, and the other involves protecting it.
If we opt for polluting the environment, then the air and water quality will be much worse in two hundred years than it would've been had we chosen the other policy.
However, the polluting policy will also have other consequences.
The economy will be different, and different people will take different jobs.
Different couples will fall in love and have children.
If different couples have children, then different people will be born.
In two hundred years, we might think that no one will exist in the polluted community who would've existed had we not polluted.
Suppose the people who do exist two hundred years from now in the polluted community suffer from health problems related to the air and water quality.
Maybe they develop asthma, heart disease, or cancer.
Even so, the nonidentity problem makes it difficult to justify the intuition that when we choose to pollute the environment, we wrong them.
After all, they are no worse off than they would've been had we decided to protect the environment.
For if we had decided to protect the environment, those people would not have existed at all.
And for those future people, a life with asthma, heart disease, or cancer, if it is still worth living, is not worse than having no life at all.
Thus, if we think we ought to worry about climate change, nuclear waste, or environmental degradation for the sake of future generations, then we will need to find some kind of solution to the nonidentity problem.
In the next video, I will discuss some of the solutions that have been proposed.
Thank you for listening!
번역
0%
(intro music) Hi! My name is Molly Gardner, and I am a research assistant professor in the philosophy department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.발음듣기
대기중
Suppose that there are two women, Alice and Barbara, who want their children to have poor health.발음듣기
대기중
But suppose that they believe that if they have sick children, they will get more attention from their friends and family.발음듣기
대기중
Now suppose that, to get what she wants, Alice takes a particular drug during her pregnancy.발음듣기
대기중
The drug causes her child, whom she names Alex, to experience poor health for his entire life.발음듣기
대기중
Meanwhile, Barbara uses in vitro fertilization, and screens the embryos for a gene that causes poor health.발음듣기
대기중
Since Barbara performed an action that had similarly bad consequences for Billy, it might be tempting to think that Barbara also harmed her child.발음듣기
대기중
The difference is that, although Alex would still have existed had his mother not taken the drug, Billy is nonidentical to anyone who would have existed had his mother not selected for poor health.발음듣기
대기중
After all, if Barbara had not selected for poor health, then either she should have not had a child at all, or else she would have brought some other child into existence, instead of Billy.발음듣기
대기중
Many philosophers appeal to a plausible theory of harming, in order to argue that this difference in what would've happened makes a moral difference.발음듣기
대기중
According to their theory of harming, an action harms you only if it makes you worse off, in at least some respect, than you would have been had the action not been performed.발음듣기
대기중
He has to go to the hospital more often, he misses more school and social events, and he feels more pain and discomfort than he otherwise would have.발음듣기
대기중
Even though Billy's life is also full of trips to the hospital, missed school days, pain, and discomfort, it is still worth living.발음듣기
대기중
The alternative for Billy is nonexistence, and a life worth living does not seem to be worse, in any respect, than no life at all.발음듣기
대기중
But if Barbara's action did not harm Billy, then we seem to be at a loss to justify the intuition that, in much the same way that Alice wronged Alex, Barbara wronged Billy.발음듣기
대기중
It is a case in which an individual appears to be wronged by an action that is the condition of his own worthwhile existence.발음듣기
대기중
The problem of either justifying the appearance that the individual was wronged, or explaining it away, is the nonidentity problem.발음듣기
대기중
Three: The only way she could have harmed him is by making him worse off than he otherwise would have been.발음듣기
대기중
If you pick any three of the claims, their conjunction will logically entail that the fourth claim is false.발음듣기
대기중
We also need to identify the flaw in the reasoning, or the intuition, that originally seemed to support whatever claim we choose to reject.발음듣기
대기중
Notice that, whatever solution we opt for will have wide-ranging implications for a number of other issues.발음듣기
대기중
Although few parents want to select for poor health, some parents might want to use new reproductive technologies to select for conditions that other people associate with poor health, unhappiness, or other bad consequences.발음듣기
대기중
Opponents of reproductive autonomy in these kinds of cases will need to grapple with the nonidentity problem.발음듣기
대기중
Although scientists haven't yet produced any genetically engineered humans, they have produced plenty of genetically engineered animals.발음듣기
대기중
The nonidentity problem raises the question of whether we are wronging such animals by bringing them into existence.발음듣기
대기중
To see why the nonidentity problem is particularly important here, consider another thought experiment.발음듣기
대기중
If we opt for polluting the environment, then the air and water quality will be much worse in two hundred years than it would've been had we chosen the other policy.발음듣기
대기중
In two hundred years, we might think that no one will exist in the polluted community who would've existed had we not polluted.발음듣기
대기중
Suppose the people who do exist two hundred years from now in the polluted community suffer from health problems related to the air and water quality.발음듣기
대기중
Even so, the nonidentity problem makes it difficult to justify the intuition that when we choose to pollute the environment, we wrong them.발음듣기
대기중
After all, they are no worse off than they would've been had we decided to protect the environment.발음듣기
대기중
For if we had decided to protect the environment, those people would not have existed at all.발음듣기
대기중
And for those future people, a life with asthma, heart disease, or cancer, if it is still worth living, is not worse than having no life at all.발음듣기
대기중
Thus, if we think we ought to worry about climate change, nuclear waste, or environmental degradation for the sake of future generations, then we will need to find some kind of solution to the nonidentity problem.발음듣기
대기중
칸아카데미 더보기더 보기
-
Portrait Bust of a Flavian Woman (Fonseca Bus...
50문장 100%번역 좋아요2
번역하기 -
90문장 100%번역 좋아요2
번역하기 -
Overview of Chinese history 1911 - 1949
84문장 100%번역 좋아요3
번역하기 -
24문장 100%번역 좋아요1
번역하기
