The Asymmetry endorses neutrality about bringing into existence lives that have positive wellbeing, and I argue against this view for much of the population ethics chapter, in the sections âThe Intuition of Neutralityâ, âClumsy Gods: The Fragility of Identityâ, and âWhy the Intuition of Neutrality is Wrongâ.
You seem to be using a different definition of the Asymmetry than Magnus is, and Iâm not sure itâs a much more common one. On Magnusâs definition (which is also used by e.g. Chappell; Holtug, Nils (2004), âPerson-affecting Moralitiesâ; and McMahan (1981), âProblems of Population Theoryâ), bringing into existence lives that have âpositive wellbeingâ is at best neutral. It could well be negative.
The kind of Asymmetry Magnus is defending here doesnât imply the intuition of neutrality, and so isnât vulnerable to your critiques like violating transitivity, or relying on a confused concept of necessarily existing people.
If bringing into existence lives that have positive wellbeing is at best neutral (and presumably strongly negative for lives with negative wellbeing) â why have children at all? Is it their instrumental value they bring in their lives that weâre after under this philosophy? (Sorry, Iâm almost surely missing something very basic here â not a philosopher.)
You seem to be using a different definition of the Asymmetry than Magnus is, and Iâm not sure itâs a much more common one. On Magnusâs definition (which is also used by e.g. Chappell; Holtug, Nils (2004), âPerson-affecting Moralitiesâ; and McMahan (1981), âProblems of Population Theoryâ), bringing into existence lives that have âpositive wellbeingâ is at best neutral. It could well be negative.
The kind of Asymmetry Magnus is defending here doesnât imply the intuition of neutrality, and so isnât vulnerable to your critiques like violating transitivity, or relying on a confused concept of necessarily existing people.
If bringing into existence lives that have positive wellbeing is at best neutral (and presumably strongly negative for lives with negative wellbeing) â why have children at all? Is it their instrumental value they bring in their lives that weâre after under this philosophy? (Sorry, Iâm almost surely missing something very basic here â not a philosopher.)