Philosophical Studies

, Volume 145, Issue 2, pp 193–214 | Cite as

Non-identity, self-defeat, and attitudes to future children

Article
  • 212 Downloads

Abstract

Although most people believe that it is morally wrong to intentionally create children who have an impairment, it is widely held that we cannot criticize such procreative choices unless we find a solution to Parfit’s non-identity problem. I argue that we can. Jonathan Glover has recently argued that, in certain circumstances, such choices would be self-defeating even if morally permissible. I argue that although the scope of Glover’s argument is too limited, it nevertheless directs attention to a moral defect in the attitudes that could motivate such procreative choices, attitudes that, properly characterized, turn out to be person-affecting in character. I conclude by arguing that prospective parents who want to create a child with an impairment face a dilemma. If they want to avoid the charge that their aim is morally defective, they must deny that the desired impairment is harmful. But this would commit them to endorsing the controversial claim that it is morally permissible or even required to turn normal children into impaired ones.

Keywords

Procreative ethics The non-identity problem Parfit Future people Disability Harm 

References

  1. Baruch, S., Kaufman, D., & Hudson K. L. (2007). Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of U.S. IVF clinics. Fertility and Sterility. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.048.Google Scholar
  2. Brock, D. (2005a). Preventing genetically transmitted disabilities while respecting persons with disabilities. In D. Wasserman, J. Bickenbach, & R. Wachbroit (Eds.), Quality of life and human difference (pp. 67–100).Google Scholar
  3. Brock, D. (2005b). Shaping future children: Parental rights and societal interests. Journal of Political Philosophy, 13(4), 377–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan, A. Brock, D., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. (2000). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Darwall, S. (2002). Welfare and rational care. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Feinberg, J. (1987). Wrongful life and the counterfactual element in harming. Social Philosophy & Policy, 4, 145–178. Reprinted in Feinberg, J. (1992). Freedom and fulfillment (pp. 3–36). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Garrard, E., & Wilkinson S. (2006). Selecting disability and the welfare of the child. The Monist, 89, 4.Google Scholar
  8. Glover, J. (2006). Choosing children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harman, E. (2004). Can we harm and benefit in creating? Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 89–113.Google Scholar
  10. Hurka, T. (2001). Virtue, vice, and value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hursthouse, R. (1991). Virtue theory and abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 20(3), 223–246.Google Scholar
  12. Kahane, G., & Savulescu, J. (forthcoming). The welfarist account of disability. In K. Brownlee, & A. Cureton (Eds.), Disability and disadvantage. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kumar, R. (2003). Who can be wronged? Philosophy, Public Affairs, 31(2), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lane, H. (2002). Do Deaf people have a disability? Sign Language Studies, 2, 4.Google Scholar
  15. Liao, S. M. (2005). Are ‘ex ante’ enhancements always permissible? The American Journal of Bioethics, 5, 3.Google Scholar
  16. McMahan, J. (2002). The Ethics of Killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McMahan, J. (2005). Causing disabled people to exist and causing people to be disabled. Ethics, 116(1), 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nagel, T. (1979). The possibility of altruism. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Reindal, S. M. (2000). Disability, gene therapy and eugenics—a challenge to John Harris. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sanghavi, D. M. (2006). ‘Wanting babies like themselves, some parents choose genetic defects. The New York Times, December 5.Google Scholar
  22. Shiffrin, S. V. (1999). Wrongful life, procreative responsibility, and the significance of harm. Legal Theory, 5, 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smilansky, S. (1994). Fortunate misfortune. Ratio, 7, 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spriggs, M. (2002). Lesbian couple create a child who is deaf like them. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 283.Google Scholar
  25. Thomson, J. J. (1991). Self defense. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 20, 283–310.Google Scholar
  26. Wasserman, D. (2005). The nonidentity problem, disability, and the role morality of prospective parents. Ethics, 116, 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of PhilosophyOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations