Disappearing beneficiaries argument

Luke1i1

Hi all

Sorry if this is in the wrong category etc.

I have a question I was hoping some of you would mind helping me figure out the answer. It is based around the disappearing beneficiaries argument put forward by Derek Parfit.

Basically I understand from reading this argument that it is impossible to benefit specific future people as actions such as government initiatives would lead to people being born who otherwise would not have been. HOWEVER could the same not be said of ANY action?

By this I mean that if I do something different now (e.g. writing this discussion post) I am potentially undertaking an action which could lead to a different offspring coming into being then what would have otherwise. I know this sounds mad but let me explain my reasoning.

If each of us are unique as it took an EXACT sperm and egg for us to come into being and they just so happened to be in the right place at the right time, surely EVERY action we undertake could lead to a different sperm being either created or in a slightly different position leading to a different offspring being born?

I know this sounds bizarre but it's just a thought I've being having.

Many thanks

Luke

BC

↪Luke1i1

A different sperm and egg would have different results, but even the same sperm and egg would have differing results. If you could run time backward, have the same sperm merge with the same egg, then run time forward and compare the difference, you wouldn't get the same result. The base pairs of the two DNAs would not combine in precisely the same way twice. Even identical twins have some differences.

Had i not seen your post, I would have been busy fucking and producing children. See what you did? A genius who would have saved the world won't be born now. On the other hand, his evil twin won't be born either. So it was a good thing you decided to write your post.

DingoJones

↪Luke1i1

I dont think its true that EVERY action we take effects the outcome of the egg, or more to the point anything else. There is no necessary link between things in a causal chain, although of course potentially there is.
So there are many things that happen that do not change the outcome of which egg, the things that effect the outcome of the egg is a special set.
If I understand you correctly, you are essentially applying the butterfly effect to the sperm and egg, but not EVERY butterfly flapping its wings contributes to a hurricane on the other side of the world. Its just that one might/could.

Terrapin Station

The disappearing beneficiaries argument has a number of problems. The biggest problem is that the second premise is simply nonsensical: "When different actions result in different people, we cannot make any particular person better or worse off." First off, all you can have are particular persons, and those particular persons will be better or worse off, once they're instantiated, based on many decisions that we make now. The fact that different decisions we make now can result in different future people being instantiated is irrelevant to this fact.

Luke1i1

Hi all

Thanks for your responses! I understand most of the points raised and yes Dingo I am essentially applying the butterfly effect.

So if I were to assume that most actions we take could result in different people being born, how can we say that doing things to benefit the future offspring (such as training to be a doctor, teacher etc.) really benefits people in the future if it's just going to change who is born? Obviously it will help HOWEVER is born but then doesn't it raise the ethical question of whether that is better than depriving someone of life who would have been born otherwise if we did not undertake that specific action?

I hope this makes sense!

Many thanks

Luke

Luke1i1

.

Luke1i1

Bump

Terrapin Station

doesn't it raise the ethical question of whether that is better than depriving someone of life who would have been born otherwise if we did not undertake that specific action — Luke1i1

You're imagining there being a person, S, who isn't born yet, that we then deprive of life if we make certain decisions so that S isn't born.

There are no existent entities who aren't born (yet). So you can't do anything to them.

Terrapin Station

how can we say that doing things to benefit the future offspring (such as training to be a doctor, teacher etc.) really benefits people in the future if it's just going to change who is born? — Luke1i1

So say that you're a young person just finishing medical school now. In the 2020s, you're a doctor in your 20s and 30s. In 2030, a child is born. That child comes to see you in your professional capacity in 2037. You help her. Additionally, unbeknownst to you, someone you talked to casually last week decided to move to Phoenix because of something you said to them. At the same time, something you say to someone online in 2028 motivates another Phoenix resident to finally talk to that guy who is always trying to flirt with her, and the kid is born of their relationship in 2030. None of that would have ever happened, that particular kid would never have been born, without actions you took now that you couldn't predict but that wound up having a major impact on folks lives that wouldn't have obtained otherwise.

So your actions now--finishing medical school, becoming a doctor, will benefit a future person, even though decisions you made now (and in the future) have a significant impact on just "who is born."

Luke1i1

Hi Terrapin

Thank you for replying! It's an issue I really struggle to get to grips with and unfortunately causes me (for some bizarre reason) a great deal of stress trying to figure it out.

Disappearing beneficiaries argument

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions