Asymmetry (population ethics)

Last updated

The Asymmetry, also known as 'the Procreation Asymmetry', [1] is the idea in population ethics that there is a moral or evaluative asymmetry between bringing into existence individuals with good or bad lives. [2] It was first discussed by Jan Narveson in 1967, and Jeff McMahan coined the term 'the Asymmetry' in 1981. [3] McMahan formulates the Asymmetry as follows: "while the fact that a person's life would be worse than no life at all ... constitutes a strong moral reason for not bringing him into existence, the fact that a person's life would be worth living provides no (or only a relatively weak) moral reason for bringing him into existence." [4] Professor Nils Holtug formulates the Asymmetry evaluatively in terms of the value of outcomes instead of in terms of moral reasons. Holtug's formulation says that "while it detracts from the value of an outcome to add individuals whose lives are of overall negative value, it does not increase the value of an outcome to add individuals whose lives are of overall positive value." [5]

Contents

Much of the literature on the ethics of procreation deals with the Asymmetry. [6] A number of authors have defended the Asymmetry, [7] and a number of authors have argued against it. [8] Many who defend the asymmetry appeal to its intuitiveness. [9] However, more elaborated defences of the asymmetry have been yielded. For instance, Jan Narveson argues that:

If we cause a miserable child to come into existence, there will exist a child who will have a justified complaint, while if we refrain from causing a happy child to come into existence, this child will not exist and so can have no complaint. [10]

Against Narverson's argument, Timothy Sprigge has claimed that if we give a miserable child a genuine reason to complain by bringing her into existence we also give a happy child a genuine reason to be grateful. [11] Professor Sprigge's argument highlights that Narveson's claim does not explain why the future of the miserable child is special but the future of the happy child is not special in the same way. Parfit solves this issue by holding these views:

(1) appeal to the Person-affecting Restriction, (2) claim that causing someone to exist can be either good or bad for him, and (3) appeal to the Narrow Principle. According to the Narrow Principle, it is wrong, if other things are equal, to do what would be either bad for, or worse for, the people who ever live. It is therefore wrong to have the Wretched Child, since this would be bad for him. But it is in no way wrong to fail to have the Happy Child. [12]

The Narrow principle justifies Narveson's defence of the asymmetry. However, this has been contested. For instance, Nils Holtug holds that the asymmetry is incompatible with a person-affecting solution to the nonidentity problem and, in addition, it is counterintuitive in another case. Suppose that in the future the last inhabitants of the earth can populate the world again or refrain from procreating and thus bring an end to the human race. Whatever they do, these already existing individuals will be equally happy. Even if they could bring billions of happy individuals into existence, there would surely be a few of them whose existence would be miserable and, hence, given the asymmetry they should bring about the end of the human race since the happiness of those possible billions of individuals counts for nothing compared to the suffering of those who would have miserable lives. [13] To avoid this radical separation between happiness and suffering, Holtug appeals instead to the Weak Asymmetry:

Everything else being equal, it is better to avoid that a person comes into existence and has a life worth not living (at level –n), than to ensure that a person comes into existence and has a life worth living (at level n). [14]

This allows to give extra weight to the badness of bringing miserable lives into existence but also allows to outweight small quantities by much larger ones when comparing suffering and happiness.

See also

Citations

  1. ↑ Frick 2014, p. 1.
  2. ↑ Frick 2014 , pp. 2–3
  3. ↑ Frick 2014 , p. 1: "The Asymmetry was first discussed by Jan Narveson in 'Utilitarianism and New Generations', Mind 76 (1967), pp. 62–72. The label is due to Jeff McMahan, 'Problems of Population Theory', Ethics, 92 (1981), pp. 96-127."
  4. ↑ McMahan 1981 , p. 100: "Consider the view that, while the fact that a person's life would be worse than no life at all (or 'worth not living') constitutes a strong moral reason for not bringing him into existence, the fact that a person's life would be worth living provides no (or only a relatively weak) moral reason for bringing him into existence. This view, which I shall refer to as 'the Asymmetry,' is approved both by Narveson and by common sense."
  5. ↑ Holtug 2004, p. 138.
  6. ↑ Heyd 1992 , p. 59: "Much of the literature on the morality of procreation revolves around the issue whether there is a difference between the duty to bring a happy child into the world and the duty to avoid conceiving a miserable child."
  7. ↑ For example, Narveson 1978, Tooley 1998, Elstein 2005, Roberts 2011a, Roberts 2011b, Algander 2012, Meacham 2012, Frick 2014, and Grill 2017.
  8. ↑ For example, Sikora 1978, Rachels 1998, Holtug 2004, Persson 2009, Beckstead 2013, and John Broome (according to Frick 2014 , p. 5).
  9. ↑ Holtug, Nils (2010). Persons, Interests and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 249. ISBN   978-0-19-958017-0.
  10. ↑ Holtug, Nils (2010). Persons, Interests and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 249. ISBN   978-0-19-958017-0.
  11. ↑ Holtug, Nils (2010). Persons, Interests and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 249. ISBN   978-0-19-958017-0.
  12. ↑ Parfit, Derek (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxrford: Oxford University Press. p. 526. ISBN   0-19-824908-X.
  13. ↑ Holtug, Nils (2010). Persons, Interests and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 250. ISBN   978-0-19-958017-0.
  14. ↑ Holtug, Nils (2010). Persons, Interests and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 255. ISBN   978-0-19-958017-0.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consequentialism</span> Ethical theory based on consequences

In ethical philosophy, consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act is one that will produce a good outcome. Consequentialism, along with eudaimonism, falls under the broader category of teleological ethics, a group of views which claim that the moral value of any act consists in its tendency to produce things of intrinsic value. Consequentialists hold in general that an act is right if and only if the act will produce, will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative. Different consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods, with chief candidates including pleasure, the absence of pain, the satisfaction of one's preferences, and broader notions of the "general good".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ethics</span> Philosophical study of morality

Ethics or moral philosophy is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. It investigates normative questions about what people ought to do or which behavior is morally right. It is usually divided into three major fields: normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.

Hedonism refers to the prioritization of pleasure in one's lifestyle, actions, or thoughts. The term can include a number of theories or practices across philosophy, art, and psychology, encompassing both sensory pleasure and more intellectual or personal pursuits, but can also be used in everyday parlance as a pejorative for the egoistic pursuit of short-term gratification at the expense of others.

In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals. In other words, utilitarian ideas encourage actions that ensure the greatest good for the greatest number.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derek Parfit</span> British philosopher (1942–2017)

Derek Antony Parfit was a British philosopher who specialised in personal identity, rationality, and ethics. He is widely considered one of the most important and influential moral philosophers of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Average and total utilitarianism are variants of utilitarianism that seek to maximize the average or total amount of utility; following Henry Sidgwick's question, "Is it total or average happiness that we seek to make a maximum?". They are theories of population ethics, a philosophical field that deals with problems arising when our actions affect the number or identity of individuals born in the future.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Antinatalism</span> Family of philosophical views

Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a family of philosophical views that are critical of reproduction — they consider coming into existence as bad or deem procreation as immoral. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children. Antinatalist views are not necessarily limited only to humans, but may encompass all sentient creatures, claiming that coming into existence is a harm for sentient beings in general.

The demandingness objection is a common argument raised against utilitarianism and other consequentialist ethical theories. The consequentialist requirement that we maximize the good impartially seems to this objection to require us to perform acts that we would normally consider optional.

David Benatar is a South African philosopher, academic, and author. He is best known for his advocacy of antinatalism in his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, in which he argues that coming into existence is serious harm, regardless of the feelings of the existing being once brought into existence, and that, as a consequence, it is always morally wrong to create more sentient beings.

Population ethics is the philosophical study of the ethical problems arising when our actions affect who is born and how many people are born in the future. An important area within population ethics is population axiology, which is "the study of the conditions under which one state of affairs is better than another, when the states of affairs in question may differ over the numbers and the identities of the persons who ever live."

Negative utilitarianism is a form of negative consequentialism that can be described as the view that people should minimize the total amount of aggregate suffering, or that they should minimize suffering and then, secondarily, maximize the total amount of happiness. It can be considered as a version of utilitarianism that gives greater priority to reducing suffering than to increasing pleasure. This differs from classical utilitarianism, which does not claim that reducing suffering is intrinsically more important than increasing happiness. Both versions of utilitarianism hold that morally right and morally wrong actions depend solely on the consequences for overall aggregate well-being. "Well-being" refers to the state of the individual.

Negative consequentialism is a version of consequentialism, which is "one of the major theories of normative ethics." Like other versions of consequentialism, negative consequentialism holds that moral right and wrong depend only on the value of outcomes. That is, for negative and other versions of consequentialism, questions such as "what should I do?" and "what kind of person should I be?" are answered only based on consequences. Negative consequentialism differs from other versions of consequentialism by giving greater weight in moral deliberations to what is bad than what is good. Due to this, it can be considered an instance of what has been called "suffering-focused ethics", the view that the reduction of suffering has moral priority over any other possible duties we may think of.

A person-affecting or person-based view in population ethics captures the intuition that an act can only be bad if it is bad for someone. Similarly something can be good only if it is good for someone. Therefore, according to standard person-affecting views, there is no moral obligation to create people nor moral good in creating people because nonexistence means "there is never a person who could have benefited from being created". Whether one accepts person-affecting views greatly influences to what extent shaping the far future is important if there are more potential humans in the future. Person-affecting views are also important in considering human population control.

The nonidentity problem in population ethics is the problem that an act may still be wrong even if it is not wrong for anyone. More precisely, the nonidentity problem is the inability to simultaneously hold the following beliefs: (1) a person-affecting view; (2) bringing someone into existence whose life is worth living, albeit flawed, is not "bad for" that person; (3) some acts of bringing someone into existence are wrong even if they are not bad for someone.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gary Varner</span> American philosopher (1957–2023)

Gary Edward Varner was an American philosopher specializing in environmental ethics, philosophical questions related to animal rights and animal welfare, and R. M. Hare's two-level utilitarianism. At the time of his death, he was an emeritus professor in the department of philosophy at Texas A&M University; he had been based at the university since 1990. He was educated at Arizona State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Wisconsin–Madison; at Madison, where he was supervised by Jon Morline, he wrote one of the first doctoral theses on environmental ethics. Varner's first monograph was In Nature's Interests?, which was published by Oxford University Press in 1998. In the book, Varner defended a form of biocentric individualism, according to which all living entities have morally considerable interests.

<i>Better Never to Have Been</i> 2006 book by David Benatar

Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence is a 2006 book by South African philosopher David Benatar. In the book, Benatar makes a case for antinatalism.

Rivka Weinberg is an American philosopher. She is a professor of philosophy at Scripps College. She specializes in bioethics, the ethics of procreation, and the metaphysics of birth, death, and existence.

Suffering-focused ethics are those views in ethics according to which reducing suffering is either a key priority or our only aim. Those suffering-focused ethics according to which the reduction of suffering is a key prioritiy are pluralistic views that include additional aims, such as the prevention of other disvaluable things like inequality, or the promotion of certain valuable things, such as pleasure. Nevertheless, these views still prioritize reducing preventable suffering over these other aims.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Longtermism</span> Philosophical view which prioritises the long-term future

Longtermism is the ethical view that positively influencing the long-term future is a key moral priority of our time. It is an important concept in effective altruism and serves as a primary motivation for efforts that claim to reduce existential risks to humanity.

Benatar's asymmetry argument for antinatalism is an argument based on the difference between harms and benefits viewed in two scenarios — when the person in question exists and when the person in question never exists. The argument, introduced by David Benatar in his Better Never to Have Been, aims to establish that coming into existence is always a harm for the one who's coming into the world.

References

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.