I would say “creating happy people is neutral; creating unhappy people is bad” is the cliffnotes of (asymmetric) person-affecting views, but there are further things to work out to make the view palatable. There are various attempts to do this (e.g. Meacham introduces “saturating counterpart relations”) . My attempt is here.
In short, I think person-affecting views can be framed as “preference utilitarianism for existing people/beings, low-demanding contractualism (i.e., ‘don’t be a jerk’) for possible people/beings.”
“Low-demanding contractualism” comes with principles like:
Don’t create minds that regret being born.
Don’t create minds and place them in situations where their interests are only somewhat fulfilled if you could easily have provided them with better circumstances.
Don’t create minds destined for constant misery even if you also equipped them with a strict preference for existence over non-existence.
That’s a good point!
I would say “creating happy people is neutral; creating unhappy people is bad” is the cliffnotes of (asymmetric) person-affecting views, but there are further things to work out to make the view palatable. There are various attempts to do this (e.g. Meacham introduces “saturating counterpart relations”) . My attempt is here.
In short, I think person-affecting views can be framed as “preference utilitarianism for existing people/beings, low-demanding contractualism (i.e., ‘don’t be a jerk’) for possible people/beings.”
“Low-demanding contractualism” comes with principles like:
Don’t create minds that regret being born.
Don’t create minds and place them in situations where their interests are only somewhat fulfilled if you could easily have provided them with better circumstances.
Don’t create minds destined for constant misery even if you also equipped them with a strict preference for existence over non-existence.
See also the discussion in this comment thread.