Parfit and Non-Identity Problem

Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy and Psychology 8 (1):41-46 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

One of the longstanding issues that haunted the minds of many philosophers is our responsibility toward future generations. However, our crude intuition tells us that we owe many tasks toward next generations and our offspring, this seemingly obvious common-sense view has been disputed seriously and now is a matter of controversy one of the philosophical arguments that most forcefully challenged the intuitively accepted responsibility toward nonexistent people has been developed by Dereck Parfit [8]. According to this argument, the presently existent people cannot be held responsible for harms that are caused by their actions. The reason that future people, so long as they have a life worth living, aren’t morally allowed to complain about their disastrous situation to harmdoer is that right-duty relation can hold merely between determinate and existent people. Parfitt's counterintuitive idea has been challenged by philosophers. In recent literature, Anthony Wrigley [10 & 11) sets out to provide a solution to the problem of nonidentity drawing on the David Lewis’s metaphysics of modality. In this paper, raising three objections, I argue why Wrigley's solution cannot address Parfit's concern about nonexistent people.

Author's Profile

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-04-08

Downloads
87 (#94,918)

6 months
87 (#74,953)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?