Thanks, Michael—briefly for now (I’m short on time today and this week): I think some actualist views deserve to be taken very seriously, but for the purpose of defending person-centered bottom-up bracketing, I meant to leave open what procreative reasons are supplied by the persons we can bring into existence. E.g., while the framing of welfare-based objections/regrets suggests an asymmetric view (focused on preventing miserable lives), antiobjections/gratitudes might give us reasons too (to bring happy lives into existence, or to grant them permitting/justifying/canceling force). I agree myopia is an issue but think avoiding it is doable. I’d be interested in reading your draft.
Thanks, Michael—briefly for now (I’m short on time today and this week): I think some actualist views deserve to be taken very seriously, but for the purpose of defending person-centered bottom-up bracketing, I meant to leave open what procreative reasons are supplied by the persons we can bring into existence. E.g., while the framing of welfare-based objections/regrets suggests an asymmetric view (focused on preventing miserable lives), antiobjections/gratitudes might give us reasons too (to bring happy lives into existence, or to grant them permitting/justifying/canceling force). I agree myopia is an issue but think avoiding it is doable. I’d be interested in reading your draft.
Here’s the draft!