Philosophy study notes

- I. The Non-Identity Problem The Non-Identity Problem is an ethical problem that arises when actions affect the identity of future persons, who would not have existed otherwise. This creates a challenge for traditional ethical theories that focus on harm and how to avoid it, because non-identity cases appear to cause no harm to anyone.
II. Derek Parfit-Four Claims of the Non-Identity Problem
1. Harm-based morality: All morally wrong actions harm someone. The only counter-example is wrong but not harmful(vices). This claim suggests that morally wrong actions must cause harm to someone, but non-identity cases challenge this assumption.
2. Value of life: Most lives are worth living, but it is unclear if there are any cases where life is not worth living. This claim challenges the assumption that life has inherent value and raises questions about the standard for what makes life worth living.
3. Sensitivity of existence: A person's existence depends on very specific conditions. The identity of a person can slip based on different conditions for their existence, and whether they would exist in a possible world is a question that has no clear answer. This claim raises questions about the continuity of identity and the role of luck in
existence.
4. Moral wrongs in non-identity cases: Actions can make a future person's life bad, but still worth living, and that person would not exist otherwise. These actions seem morally wrong, but it is unclear why, as they do not cause harm to anyone.
III. Solutions to the Non-Identity Problem
1. "Biting the bullet": Accepting that these actions are not morally wrong, even if it seems counterintuitive. This solution prioritizes consistency in ethical theory over moral intuition.
2. Giving up on sensitivity of existence: Rejecting the idea that a person's existence depends on very specific conditions. This solution challenges the assumption that a person's identity is determined solely by their existence.
3. Challenging the claim that most lives are worth living: Arguing that some lives are not worth living and that it may be morally wrong to bring a person into the world if their life will be full of suffering or deprivation.
4. Prioritizing harm-based morality: Arguing that actions can be morally wrong even if they do not cause harm in the usual sense. This solution challenges the traditional view that harm is a necessary condition for moral wrongness.
IV. Why Non-Identity Cases are Morally Wrong -Non-identity cases are considered morally wrong because they involve actions that create a person who has a life that is bad but worth living, and who would not exist otherwise. These actions violate our moral obligations to avoid causing unnecessary harm, as they bring a person into a world where they will
experience suffering or deprivation that could have been avoided if a different action had been taken.
In summary, the Non-Identity Problem is a challenge to traditional ethical theories that prioritize harm and avoiding it. Non-identity cases raise questions about the value of life, the continuity of identity, and the role of luck in existence. Proposed solutions include accepting that these actions are not morally wrong, rejecting the idea that a person's existence
depends on specific conditions, challenging the claim that most lives are worth living, and prioritizing harm-based morality. Non-identity cases are considered morally wrong because they violate our moral obligations to avoid causing unnecessary harm.
1) Harm-Based Morality
The claim: All morally wrong actions harm someone. (Only harmful actions are morally wrong.)
Technical definition of harm: make someone worse off than they otherwise would have been.
Counter-example: morally wrong, not harmful
Potential counter-examples:

 Vices

 Destroying nature or art

But examples of these things may reasonably be thought either 1) not morally wrong or 2) (indirectly) harmful.
2) Value of Life
The claim: Most lives are worth living. (Even a fairly bad life is still worth living.)
A widely endorsed optimism. We generally think that a life must be utterly terrible or devoid of any valuable experiences at all to be not worth living.
3) Sensitivity of Existence
The claim: A person's existence depended on very specific conditions. (If the biological facts of a person's origins had been even slightly different, they would not exist)
Method: I inspect possible worlds and ask if I exist in those worlds.
Most people's judgement: If either of the gametes from which my development began had been different (extremely easy, given trillions of sperm cells), someone else (or no one), would have existed instead of me.
4) Moral Wrongs in the "Non-Identity Cases"
These are cases in which an action both leads to the existence of a person and makes that person's life bad (though still worth living).

 Someone deliberately gets pregnant despite knowledge of serious, and avoidable, birth defects.

 A society destroys the environment while creating descendants who will suffer in it.

 Someone procreates in order to sell the child into slavery.

Most people judge at least some of these actions to be morally wrong.
The Contradiction
The victims(?) in these cases gets lives that are (barely) worth living (from Claim 2).
If the factors that make their life bad had been different, they wouldn't exist (from Claim 3).
So they are not worse off than they otherwise would have been. So they aren't harmed. But this contradicts Claim 1.
Solutions
Any of the four claims might be denied. Denial of Claims 3 or 4 would be very surprising. Some philosophers have denied Claim 2, saying that no life is worth starting. Denial of Claim 1 seems to require an impersonal moral theory (utilitarianism) that places moral importance on aggregate welfare rather than harm or benefit to specific person

1. Meta-Ethics: This is the highest level of moral philosophy and deals with fundamental questions about morality. Some of the issues in meta-ethics include the existence of moral facts, the nature of moral judgments, and their justification. This level is concerned with questions that are not the basic questions that someone would ask.
2. Normative Ethics: At this level, moral theories, principles, and rules are discussed. Theories that can be applied to particular problems or cases are studied. Some of the questions that normative ethics seeks to answer include what makes an action morally right or wrong and what moral duties we have.
3. Applied Ethics: This level takes a theory and applies it to a problem. It is concerned with moral questions about specific problems and domains, such as medical ethics, environmental ethics, and business ethics. The goal is to find practical solutions to moral problems in real-life situations.
4. Moral Skepticism: This is a philosophical position that denies the possibility of moral knowledge. Two prominent moral skeptics are Richard Joyce and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.
5. Moral Judgments: Moral judgments are attributions of moral qualities to something. The question that arises is whether any moral judgments can be considered knowledge.
6. Error Theory: This is a theory that holds that all moral judgments are errors. According to this theory, moral judgments are not true because they do not refer to any real thing. This position is a type of moral anti-realism because it denies the existence of moral realities.
7. Naturalism: This is a realist response to the "weirdness" argument. Naturalism claims that moral rightness is a natural property and not a weird character. However, it raises the question of which property it is and why.
8. Non-Naturalism: This is another realist response to the "weirdness" argument. Non-naturalism claims that moral rightness is a non-natural property, which is considered weird.
9. Noncognitivism: This is a position that denies that moral judgments are beliefs. According to noncognitivism, moral judgments are not true because they are not candidates for truth. This position is another type of moral anti-realism.
10. Descriptivism: This is a view that moral language is primarily descriptive and that moral judgments express beliefs about the world. However, it also acknowledges that language can be deceiving and not always mean something.
11. Emotivism: This is a view that moral language is primarily expressive and that moral judgments express emotions or attitudes towards something. It also acknowledges that language can be deceiving and not always mean something.
12. Moral Disagreements: Moral disagreements are used as evidence by both proponents and opponents of moral skepticism. Noncognitivists argue that moral disagreements show that moral judgments are not candidates for truth. Realists, on the other hand, argue that moral disagreements can be resolved by finding the correct moral
answer.
13. Justification Skepticism: This is a view that denies that any belief can be justified. The best explanation for justification is something like criminal trials, where the best explanation counts.
14. Inferential Justification: This is a form of justification where moral beliefs are grounded in other moral beliefs. This leads to a regress problem, where the justification for the first moral belief is missing.
15. Non-Inferential Justification: This is a form of justification where a moral belief can be self-justified. The moral properties must be directly apprehended, and not worked out by some sort of argument.
16. Moral Intuitions: Moral intuitions are our instinctive reactions to moral situations.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that aims to promote the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. It is a consequentialist theory, meaning that it evaluates the morality of an action based on its outcomes. Utilitarianism also values impartiality, meaning that the well-being of every individual is considered equally important, regardless of
their identity.

There are four core elements of Utilitarianism. Firstly, consequentialism dictates that one should always promote good outcomes. Secondly, welfarism asserts that the only thing that matters for an action's moral value is the well-being of individuals affected by it. Thirdly, impartiality emphasizes that the identity of individuals is irrelevant to the value of an
outcome. Lastly, aggregationism suggests that the value of the world is the sum of the values of its parts.
Classic Utilitarianism is based on two key ideas: hedonism and the total view of population ethics. Hedonism argues that well-being equals happiness, not desire-satisfaction or intrinsic goods. The total view of population ethics holds that better outcomes equal greater total well-being, not just greater average well-being.

Utilitarianism supports the expansion of the circle of moral concern. It urges us to consider the well-being of all individuals regardless of species, country, or time period. The circle of moral beings can be thought of as something that increases and helps track moral progress.
There are several arguments in favor of Utilitarianism, such as its intuitive account of "what matters," its ability to explain/ground other common-sense moral rules, and its resistance to privilege/status quo. Utilitarianism also passes the "veil of ignorance" test, which suggests that one way to get at the right moral principle is to put yourself in the "original
position" and be ignorant about who will be in that society.

However, Utilitarianism has its critics. Some argue that it leaves out and does not consider moral rights in certain cases, such as trolley problems. Others claim that it is too demanding, making it impractical to live a life where every decision is based on maximizing well-being.
Topics in Animal Ethics-
Applied Ethics Category - Moral Questions about Specific Problems and Domains
Jeff McMahan - "The Meat Eaters" article Alfred Lord Tennyson - "Man trusted God was love indeed and love creations final law - Tho nature, red in tooth and claw, with ravine, shriek’d. The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation." - Richard Dawkins
Moral concern and action for the well-being of wild animals (aside from our impact on them) is unusual.
Two concerns in both readings - both bring up implications of suffering in the natural world, "If I had been in a position to design and create a world, I would have tried to arrange for all conscious individuals to be able to survive without tormenting and killing other conscious individuals." (Points to the problem of evil)
Assumption and question - Ethics of factory farming is morally indefensible and must stop.
McMahan - but: "Ought we go further?"

Engineering the end of predation Two possible mechanisms:

1. Managed extinction - With herbivore replacement?
2. Radical genetic manipulation - the idea that species would be tampered with.
Possibly equivalent to extinction, so radical that perhaps not the same species anymore
Discussion - Should we do it? Why or why not?
Objections -
1. Ecological hazard - massive unintended consequences, e.g "Malthusian dystopia." Populations of animals are kept down, and if predators are removed, it can be counterproductive in reducing the amount of misery.
2. Playing God - against nature.
Ecological hazard - we're already causing a new mass extinction. Massive disruption already happens because of us. We could do it selectively (morally guided) rather than with "reckless indifference."

Playing God - the view says that it's God's purview alone. Religions always oppose policies that reduce suffering. The dubious distinction between "deliberate, morally-motivated action" and mere foreseeable consequences. It's up to us alone to bring about the morally best outcomes.

Against nature - so what? Nature is not a god, nature is not sacred. We don’t have a strong moral reason to prevent the suffering that we’re not causing, but we still have moral reason to prevent it if this doesn’t destroy anything of comparable moral value.
Do species have intrinsic value? Intrinsic value "sacredness" Impersonal value - aside from instrumental value for species members. Those species are benefitting from being alive towards its specie. And negative instrumental value for member of prey species.

Consider - Species are just interbreeding groups. Were past (billions of years!) extinctions bad?
Why You Should Eat Meat Article Not eating animals is wrong. If you care about animals, then the right thing to do is breed them, kill them, and eat them.
Natural enemies of domesticated animals - vegans Carnivores' "natural friends"
The argument - (not premises) Three components:
1. Utilitarian - the pleasure and happiness of animals also matter, and it may outweigh pain and suffering.
2. Non-utilitarian - "the argument from historical benefit" (to be eaten is the reason for their existence).
3. The "rights" argument. brought it into existence to eat it, we should eat it.
Imagine - The idea is that the farm is naturalistic in a sense. "Conditions that should be the envy of wild animals"1. have great lives in this context.
The interest of the cow can be equal to a person.2. "Benefited by its destiny"
- enjoying the benefit of its destiny to become food.
3.Since we brought it into existence to eat it, we should eat it.
Question is why not eat them? Against the historical function of the “dog- human institution” hasn’t been bred as our food source but used for other services.
“eating them would violate that tradition”
Notes:
Jeff McMahan's article "The Meat Eaters" and Alfred Lord Tennyson's poem "In Memoriam A.H.H." both bring up the implications of suffering in the natural world. Richard Dawkins claims that "the total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation." However, moral concern and action for the well-being of wild
animals (aside from our impact on them) is unusual.
McMahan argues that the ethics of factory farming is morally indefensible and must stop. He also questions whether we should go further and engineer the end of predation through two possible mechanisms: managed extinction with herbivore replacement or radical genetic manipulation. However, objections include ecological hazard (massive unintended
consequences, e.g. "Malthusian dystopia"), playing god, and going against nature.
Regarding intrinsic value, species may have sacredness and impersonal value (aside from instrumental value for species members). However, we must also consider negative instrumental value for members of prey species. Species are just interbreeding groups, and past extinctions may not necessarily have been bad.
On the other hand, the article "Why You Should Eat Meat" argues that not eating animals is wrong, and if you care about animals, the right thing to do is breed them, kill them, and eat them. Vegans are the natural enemies of domesticated animals, while carnivores are their natural friends.
The argument includes three components: utilitarianism (the pleasure and happiness of animals also matter and may outweigh pain and suffering), the "argument from historical benefit" (to be eaten is the reason for their existence), and the "rights" argument.
The article suggests that a farm is naturalistic in a sense, with "conditions that should be the envy of wild animals." The interest of a cow can be equal to that of a person. Domesticated animals are benefited by their destiny to become food, so since we brought them into existence to eat them, we should eat them.
However, we must also consider the right not to be eaten (against our will). For example, why not eat humans if there were some who "owed their existence to a cannibalistic meat-eating practice"? The major reason why humans have rights that animals do not is that humans have rationality, which is the basis(Christine krosgard) for self-consciousness, self-
governance, and self-reflection. Rationality is also the source of our knowledge and creativity.
Jeremy Bentham believes that the capacity for suffering is what is deserving of moral consideration, rather than the ability to reason or talk. Zangwill argues that both suffering and reasoning are important, and that the ability to suffer is crucial for quality of life, while reasoning gives rights.
However, our ability to figure out which animals can reason and use rationality is uncertain, such as in the case of apes. It is suggested that what is going on is probably not reasoning but being associated and conditioned, as with dogs. Therefore, eating them would violate the tradition of the "dog-human institution" which has not been bred as our food source
but used for other services. anti-speciesism, which is the rejection of the practice of giving some individuals less moral consideration than others based on their species

Longtermism-
Nuclear war could lead to the death of 99% or 100% of humanity, posing a significant threat.

 The expanding circle of moral concern is crucial in articulating utilitarianism, and it is the question of how big this circle should be, and how much interest should be recognized. There are three ways to expand the circle of moral concern: moral cosmopolitanism, utilitarian demandingness, and global inequality
efficiency of resource transfer. Weak(Longtermism ) Future people count.
There could be a lot of them
We can make their lives better (or worse)
Hence
We should act in the interests of future people a lot more than we currently do

Effective altruism has changed the landscape of charitable giving by arguing that what matters is how much good a charity does, not how efficient it is per dollar.

 The big question is whether the demands of impartiality also apply across temporal separation, meaning that future people's interests should be given equal consideration across space, species, and time.

 Future discounting is the idea that people value present goods more than future goods, and hyperbolic discounting suggests that people might prefer $100 today over $100 tomorrow, for example.

 Strong longtermism suggests that the biggest determinant of the moral value of our actions today is how they affect the entire future of humanity, considering x-risks and the potential for humanity.

 The big four x-risks include climate change, nuclear war, biological risk, and superintelligent AI, and they could lead to a "perceptual totalitarian dystopia."

 Longtermists argue that it is morally important that the lives of future people are good, and that existing is a necessary condition of having a good life, which means it is morally important that future people exist.

 Anti-natalism is the idea that it is almost always morally wrong to create a sentient being. However, this view is challenged by Singer's optimism and pro-natalism arguments.
Anti-Natalism:

 Anti-Natalism is the view that it is almost always morally wrong to procreate or create a sentient being.
  It is based on the belief that life is not worth starting, and therefore, it is better not to bring a new life into existence.

 The pessimistic view of life is the basis for anti-natalism, which suggests that life is full of suffering and that the good things in life do not justify the pain and misery.

 Anti-Natalism holds that even though life is often worth continuing, it is wrong to create new life as the risk of suffering outweighs the benefits.
Optimism:

 Optimism can be of two types - predictive optimism and evaluative optimism.

 Predictive optimism is about predicting or estimating positive outcomes.

 Evaluative optimism is the overall view of the value of life.

 The pessimist suggests something wrong or off about a person, while the optimist is considered deeply morally defective.

 Arthur Schopenhauer argues that optimism is not just absurd, but also wicked and a bitter mockery of the unspeakable suffering of human kind.
Life Worth Living:

 A life worth living is worth continuing or starting.

 Continuing - It is better for an existing person to go on living than to die, given their interest in continuing.

 Worth starting - It is better for a potential person to come into existence than to remain merely potential.
Classic Statement of Pessimism:

 The classic statement of pessimism is "not to be born is best."

 The pessimistic view of life is that life is not worth starting, and once someone has seen the light, the next best thing is to go back where they came from.
Anti-Natalism's Pessimistic View of Life:

 Anti-Natalism argues that life is not worth starting, and therefore procreation is morally wrong.

 However, life is often worth continuing, which means that death is bad, and suicide is momentous.
Asymmetry:

 The asymmetry argument states that suffering in life is a reason not to bring a potential person into existence, but happiness in life is not a reason to bring a potential person into existence.

 It is bad to create a suffering person, but it is not bad to not create a happy person. I don’t kill my self because death is terrible- In life we acquire an immense interest in continuing even as we suffer and even though death is inevitable

This predicament is a major reason why it is wrong to create a new life

Happiness vs. Suffering:

 Anti-Natalism suggests that suffering is worse than pleasure is good.

 People have an "optimism bias" or "Pollyannaism," which means that they can be wrong about how bad their life is.

 The hedonic treadmill is the idea that people's happiness is linked to their fixed psychology.

 The quality of a life is usually judged relative to what is possible for that type of being (human, dog, etc.). capacity of consciousness
Imposing Risk:

 Imposing risk on someone without their consent or disregard for their safety is wrongful.

 In a non-procreative context, imposing risk is considered wrong and can lead to lawsuits.

 The lifetime risk of a bad thing like illness can be imagined to understand the implications of imposing risk.

 Arthur Schopenhauer's view is that optimism is not just absurd, but also wicked as it is a bitter mockery of the unspeakable suffering of humankind.

 A life worth living is one that is worth continuing or starting. Continuing a life is better than dying, given the person's interest in continuing. Starting a life is better than remaining merely potential.

 Anti-natalism's pessimistic view of life is that it is not worth starting, so procreation is wrong.

 An existent person has an immense interest in continuing life, even if it is bad. This predicament is a major reason why it is wrong to create a new life.
2. Evaluating Life Quality:

 We judge the quality of life relative to what is possible for that type of being.

 Suffering is worse than pleasure is good.

 People can be wrong about how bad their life is, and we have an "optimism bias."

 Most people's happiness is linked to their fixed psychology.

 The joy of parenthood does count in favor of procreation, but parents' joy does not outweigh the harm to others.

 The "misanthropic" argument is concerned with the suffering by the person we created and the suffering that person will create.

 According to Benatar's estimate, most new people will cause more bad than good.

 Singer's optimistic view is that most lives are worth starting as they contain more happiness than suffering. Singers (evaluative and predictive) optimism

 Responds to Benatar-Most lives are worth living (starting) because they contain more happiness than suffering and “if humans survive for another century or two” probably all lives will be worth starting in the future.

 The expanding circle of moral concern is a philosophical concept that refers to the idea that our moral concern starts from ourselves, then expands to our family and friends, our community, and ultimately to all living beings. Utilitarianism, a moral theory that focuses on maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number, emphasizes
the importance of expanding the circle of moral concern to include all individuals whose interests are affected by our actions.

 Moral cosmopolitanism is the view that spatial separation is irrelevant when it comes to moral concern, meaning that we should care about people who are far away from us as much as we care about people who are close to us. This view is particularly relevant in the context of global inequality, where people in rich countries tend to
have much better living conditions than people in poor countries.

 Utilitarian demandingness is the idea that we should treat the interests of all individuals equally, regardless of their social status, ethnicity, or other characteristics. This view is closely related to moral cosmopolitanism and highlights the importance of impartiality in moral decision-making.

 The law of diminishing marginal utility is an economic concept that suggests that the value of additional units of a good decreases as more units are consumed. This law has important implications for global inequality and the distribution of resources, as it suggests that the marginal utility of a dollar is higher for a poor person than for a
rich person.

 Effective altruism is a movement that aims to use reason and evidence to maximize the positive impact of charitable giving. Effective altruists argue that we should focus on the most pressing global problems, such as poverty, disease, and climate change, and donate to the charities that are most effective at addressing these problems.

 Future discounting is a psychological bias that makes people value present goods more than future goods. This bias can have important implications for moral decision-making, as it suggests that people might prioritize their present interests over the interests of future generations.

 Strong longtermism is a moral theory that emphasizes the importance of considering the long-term future of people

 Benatars-The “misanthropic” argument- is concerned with the suffering by the person we created and the suffering that person will create.,Nearly every new person will harm many others and many animals, Some will cause a lot of harm Benatar’s estimate: most cause more bad than good

 Longtermism is a philosophical and ethical theory that emphasizes the importance of considering the long-term consequences of our actions, especially those that affect the future of humanity as a whole. It argues that we should prioritize the well-being of future generations over our current concerns, and that we should be willing to
make sacrifices in the present in order to secure a better future.

 One example of the importance of long-term thinking is given by Derek Parfit. He asks us to imagine stepping on a piece of glass today versus stepping on that same piece of glass in 200 years. He argues that the fact that the harm is delayed by 200 years does not make it less bad, and therefore we should take actions to prevent that
harm from happening, even if it only affects people in the distant future.

 According to strong longtermism, the moral value of our actions today should be determined by how they affect the entire future of humanity. This means that we should be thinking about the long-term consequences of our actions and policies, rather than just focusing on short-term benefits or immediate problems. The idea of
"humanity's potential" is also important in this context, as it suggests that humanity as a whole has a certain potential that depends on what we do now.

 One of the biggest concerns of longtermism is existential risks, such as climate change, nuclear war, biological risks, and artificial intelligence (AI). These risks have the potential to wipe out humanity or drastically reduce our potential, and therefore they require urgent attention and action.

 Longtermists also argue that we are living in a period of unprecedented technological, scientific, and economic growth, which gives us new powers to protect, ruin, or prevent humanity's long-term future. We should be careful not to use these powers in ways that could harm future generations or lead to perpetual dystopias.

 Despite the challenges and risks involved, longtermism offers a compelling moral and ethical framework for thinking about our responsibilities to future generations. By prioritizing the long-term well-being of humanity, we can work towards a more sustainable and just future for all.

 "sustainable altruism". This means that we should aim to do the most good we can over the long term, without sacrificing the ability of future generations to do the same