Non-Identity Problem Explained | w/ThisIsMani!
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- Hey Guys! I hope you're all doing well!
PSA: I think the NI Problem is flawed, and that we DO owe over future generations a right not a non-flawed existence!!
I hope you enjoy this bitesize snippet of philosophy!
The links to social media channels are here:
CZcams: @ThisIsMani
Instagram: / manindersachdeva
More Resources regarding the Non-Identity Problem:
1. plato.stanford.edu/entries/no...
2. ndpr.nd.edu/news/harming-futu...
3. • The Nonidentity Proble...
4. • The non-identity probl...
Follow more of The StudyTube Project here:
Instagram - / thestudytub. .
Twitter - / thestudytube
I hope you guys enjoy this video! I really enjoyed making it! ❤️
Amazing video!
Just an idea tho: instead of thinking about it as "there is one set picture of the future, where we do not make any changes and continue to harm the Earth the same way" and an alternate future where we make some better choices, we look at it as if there is no set puctire of the future. This way it's not as if we prevent people from the first instance to be born in order to have the alternate humanity. It's just that we look at the bigger picture, where it doesn't even necessarily matter who is born and who isn't.
Zsuzska that’s a really interesting idea and I think is embodied in the De-re and de-doctor distinction (would definitely read up on it!!). Because one could argue that we might not harm a specific person, but harm the label of the person that will come into existence, whoever that may be!
@@ThisIsMani I'm the same person but with a different account, sorry:)
Honestly this whole video is extremely interresting and I would love to discuss and/or hear more of your thoughts. Fascinating, I love it. I will definitely read up on that. (thank you for the response)
Loved this so much!thank you, I'm going to read the articles!
I think it's interesting but I don't really buy the idea that non-existence is such a bad thing. Yes, people who are already alive generally enjoy the fact that they exist. But people who do not yet exist probably aren't able to form an opinion on whether they would like to be born or not. I think it's still worse for Person A to live in a world without enough ressources than it is for Person B to not exist in a world with enough ressources. And even if Person A or B never exist, others will, so it doesn't matter so much which individuals are born, considering how many people there are on the planet...
This is literally explained so well, thank you for "harming your brain" look to explain this video. It's almost like life makes sense now... finally.
hey that was quite exciting!thanks😃
I now have to look into it. I am really curious about the third institution.
such an interesting video!
Great Vid! Thanks!!
Thank you so much for the video. I'd been trying to understand the non-identity problem for a paper on climate change justice - this helped enormously :)
Thank you for this!
thank you~
wow👀
3:57
I see the non-identity problem as a false dilemma because you are dealing with unknowns, which are more likely to be affected by ones present intention. For example, as far as experience shows, the young girl is better off not having the child because that child is much more likely to suffer a bleak and underprivileged existence. Hypothetically accessing the situation of the child before or after the fact is not realistic or non sequitur.
The NIP tries to deny the causal link between the past and future, but unfortunately for Parfit, anyone with common sense can see cause and effect. He probably thought he was being clever by exploiting the definitions of what constitutes a person/identity LOL
Any chance you want to share your practical ethics notes with me? :'(