Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 1165–1185 | Cite as

Non-Identity for Non-Humans

  • Duncan Purves
  • Benjamin Hale


This article introduces a non-human version of the non-identity problem and suggests that such a variation exposes weaknesses in several proposed person-focused solutions to the classic version of the problem. It suggests first that person-affecting solutions fail when applied to non-human animals and, second, that many common moral arguments against climate change should be called into question. We argue that a more inclusive version of the person-affecting principle, which we call the ‘patient-affecting principle’, captures more accurately the moral challenge posed by the non-identity problem. We argue further that the failure of person-affecting solutions to solve non-human versions of the problem lend support to impersonal solutions to the problem which avoid issues of personhood or species identity. Finally, we conclude that some environmental arguments against climate change that rely on the notion of personal harm should be recast in impersonal terms.


Non-identity problem Derek Parfit Non-human animals Harm Future generations 


  1. Adams RM (1979) Existence, self-interest, and the problem of evil. Noûs 13(1):53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anglin B (1977) The repugnant conclusion. Can J Philos 7(4):745–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer D, Eby M, Brovkin V, Ridgwell A, Cao L, Mikolajewicz U, Tokos K (2009) Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 37:117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boonin D (2008) How to solve the non-identity problem. Public Affairs Quarterly 22(2):129–159Google Scholar
  5. Brock DW (1995) The non-identity problem and genetic harms – the case of wrongful handicaps. Bioethics 9(3):269–275. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1995.tb00361.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broome, J. (2012). Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, A., Brock, D. W., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. (2001). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA, Totterdell IJ (2000) Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408(6809):184–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dasgupta P (2008) Discounting climate change. J Risk Uncertain 37:141–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Disilvestro R (2009) Reproductive autonomy, the non-identity problem, and the non-person problem. Bioethics 23(1):59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, Power ME, Berger J, Bond WJ, Wardle DA (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333(6040):301–306. doi: 10.1126/science.1205106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geach PT (1956) Good and Evil. Analysis 17:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hannah L, Midgley G, Lovejoy T, Bond W, Bush M, Lovett J, Woodward F (2002) Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate. Conserv Biol 16(1):264–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanser M (1990) Harming future people. Philos Public Aff 19:47–70Google Scholar
  15. Harman E (2004) Can we harm and benefit in creating? Philos Perspect 18(1):89–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harman E (2009) Harming as causing harm Harming future persons (pp. 137–154. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. Heller NE, Zavaleta ES (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv 142(1):14–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holtug N (2004) Person-affecting moralities The Repugnant Conclusion (pp. 129–161. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  19. Huemer M (2008) In defence of repugnance. Mind 117(468):899–933Google Scholar
  20. Hurka T (1982a) Average utilitarianisms. Analysis 42(2):65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hurka T (1982b) More average utilitarianisms. Analysis 42(3):115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hurka T (1983) Value and population size. Ethics 93:496–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klocksiem J (2011) Perspective-neutral intrinsic value. Pac Philos Q 92:323–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kraut R (2007) What is good and why: The ethics of well-being. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar R (2003) Who can be wronged? Philos Public Aff 31(2):99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E, Hall JW, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber HJ (2008) Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(6):1786–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markie P (2005) Nonidentity, wrongful conception and harmless wrongs. Ratio 18(3):290–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mora C, Frazier AG, Longman RJ, Dacks RS, Walton MM, Tong EJ, Anderson JM (2013) The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability. Nature 502(7470):183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ng Y-K (1989) What should we do about future generations? Econ Philos 5(02):235–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norcross A (1999) Intransitivity and the person-affecting principle. Philos Phenomenol Res 59(3):769–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Neill O (1997) Environmental values, anthropocentrism and speciesism. Environmental Values 6:127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmer C (2011) Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: a response to Thompson. Nano. Ethics 5(1):43–48Google Scholar
  33. Palmer C (2012) Does breeding a bulldog harm it? Breeding, ethics and harm to animals. Anim Welf 21(2):157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parfit, D. (1976). On doing the best for our children. In M. Bayles (Ed.), Ethics and Population (pp. 100–102).Google Scholar
  35. Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Parsons J (2003) Why the handicapped child case is hard. Philos Stud 112(2):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peters PG (2009) Implications of the nonidentity problem for state regulation of reproductive liberty Harming Future Persons (pp. 317–331. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  38. Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Abell R, Brooks TM, Gittleman JL, Joppa LN, Sexton JO (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344(6187):1246752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Post E, Forchhammer MC, Bret-Harte MS, Callaghan TV, Christensen TR, Elberling B, et al. (2009) Ecological dynamics across the Arctic associated with recent climate change. Science 325(5946):1355–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  41. Reiman J (2007) Being fair to future people: The non-identity problem in the original position. Philos Public Aff 35(1):69–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roberts MA (2003) Is the person-affecting intuition paradoxical? Theor Decis 55(1):1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Savulescu J (2001) Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15(5–6):413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413(6856):591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwartz T (1978) Obligations to posterity. Obligations to future generations 3:3–13Google Scholar
  46. Shiffrin SV (1999) Wrongful life, procreative responsibility, and the significance of harm. Legal Theory 5(2):117–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sider TR (1991) Might theory X be a theory of diminishing marginal value? Analysis 51(4):265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smolkin D (1999) Toward a rights-based solution to the non-identity problem. J Soc Philos 30(1):194–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steinbock B (2009) Wrongful life and procreative decisions Harming Future Persons (pp. 155–178. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  50. Temkin L (2000) Equality, Priority, and the Levelling Down Objection. In: Clayton M, Williams A (eds) The Ideal of Equality. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  51. Temkin, L. S. (2003). Egalitarianism defended*. Ethics, 113(4), 764–782.Google Scholar
  52. Thompson PB (2013) The opposite of human enhancement: nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem Nanotechnology, the Brain, and the Future (pp. 247–263. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomson JJ (2001) Goodness and advice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  54. Woodward J (1986) The non-identity problem. Ethics 96:804–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Studies and BioethicsNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Studies and PhilosophyUniversity of Colorado-BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations