Rights, indirect harms and the non-identity problem.
The non-identity problem is the problem of grounding moral wrongdoing in cases in which an action affects who will exist in the future. Consider a woman who intentionally conceives while on medication that is harmful for a fetus. If the resulting child is disabled as a result of the medication, what makes the woman's action morally wrong? I argue that an explanation in terms of harmful rights violations fails, and I focus on Peter Markie's recent rights-based defense. Markie's analysis rests on the notion of an indirect harm, and I show that the calculation of an indirect harm relies on an improper baseline for the determination of whether or not an action adversely affects a patient's interests. I also defend an impersonal duty-based analysis of the wrongdoing in non-identity cases against an objection by Markie. I close by arguing that the rights-based analysis is insensitive to context and that context is morally relevant in the determination of the moral valence of actions in cases of non-identity. This failure provides a pro tanto reason to favor an impersonal duty-based analysis of the wrongdoing in non-identity cases.
McBrayer
Justin Patrick
JP
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65203, USA. justinmcbrayer@yahoo.com
D000014:Abnormalities, Drug-Induced; D026689:Ethical Analysis; D005260:Female; D005306:Fertilization; D005333:Fetus / Q000187:drug effects; D006806:Human Rights; D006801:Humans; D009014:Morals; D028723:Personhood; D011247:Pregnancy; D012941:Social Responsibility