Rights, indirect harms and the non-identity problem

Area of Science:

• Ethics
• Moral Philosophy
• Applied Ethics

Background:

• The non-identity problem questions the moral basis of actions affecting future individuals.
• Existing rights-based explanations, like Peter Markie's, face challenges in grounding moral wrongdoing.
• Cases involve intentionally conceiving while using harmful substances, potentially causing future harm to offspring.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critique rights-based defenses of the non-identity problem.
• To propose and defend an impersonal duty-based analysis as a superior alternative.
• To demonstrate the inadequacy of rights-based approaches in accounting for contextual moral relevance.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of Peter Markie's rights-based defense, focusing on the concept of indirect harm.
• Examination of the baseline used for determining adverse effects on patient interests.
• Development and defense of an impersonal duty-based ethical framework.
• Argumentation for the moral relevance of context in non-identity cases.

Main Results:

• Rights-based explanations, particularly those relying on indirect harm, fail to adequately ground moral wrongdoing in non-identity cases.
• Markie's calculation of indirect harm uses an improper baseline, misjudging adverse effects on interests.
• An impersonal duty-based analysis offers a more robust framework for assessing moral responsibility.
• Rights-based analyses are insensitive to context, which is crucial for moral evaluation.

Conclusions:

• The non-identity problem cannot be adequately resolved through a rights-based framework.
• An impersonal duty-based approach provides a more suitable foundation for moral analysis in cases affecting future persons.
• Contextual factors are morally significant and must be incorporated into ethical decision-making for non-identity situations.