0 0 0 0 Dag
0 0 0 0 Tim
0 0 0 0 Min
0 0 0 0 Sek
Live Offentliga samtal på Vetenskapsfestivalen
Se Live-streaming här Visa inte information om detta event igen

Persson’s Merely Possible Persons

Bykvist, Krister , Campbell, Tim | 2020

Bykvist, K., & Campbell, T. (2020). Persson's Merely Possible Persons. Utilitas, 32(4), 479-487. doi:10.1017/S0953820820000199

Abstract
All else being equal, creating a miserable person makes the world worse, and creating an ecstatic person makes it better. Such claims are easily justified if it can be better, or worse, for a person to exist than not to exist. But that seems to require that things can be better, or worse, for a person even in a world in which she does not exist. Ingmar Persson defends this seemingly paradoxical claim in his latest book, Inclusive Ethics. He argues that persons that never exist are merely possible beings for whom non-existence is worse than existence with a good life. We argue that Persson’s argument, as stated in his book, has false premises and is invalid. We reconstruct the argument to make it valid, but the premises remain highly problematic. Finally, we argue, one can make sense of our procreative obligations without letting merely possible beings into the moral club.

pdf-dokument - Kostnadsfritt
Ladda ner

Bykvist, K., & Campbell, T. (2020). Persson's Merely Possible Persons. Utilitas, 32(4), 479-487. doi:10.1017/S0953820820000199

Abstract
All else being equal, creating a miserable person makes the world worse, and creating an ecstatic person makes it better. Such claims are easily justified if it can be better, or worse, for a person to exist than not to exist. But that seems to require that things can be better, or worse, for a person even in a world in which she does not exist. Ingmar Persson defends this seemingly paradoxical claim in his latest book, Inclusive Ethics. He argues that persons that never exist are merely possible beings for whom non-existence is worse than existence with a good life. We argue that Persson’s argument, as stated in his book, has false premises and is invalid. We reconstruct the argument to make it valid, but the premises remain highly problematic. Finally, we argue, one can make sense of our procreative obligations without letting merely possible beings into the moral club.